ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
September 3,
1992
RESIDENTS OF CEDARVILLE,
)
)
Complainant,
PCB 91—194
v.
)
(Enforcement)
VILLAGE OF CEDARVILLE,
)
)
Respondent.
ROBERT CROUSE, SYLVIA CROUSE,
HOLLY WELLMAN,
LARRY
WELLMAN,
SCOTT
-•
HARRIS, TERI HARRIS,
MARLENE
STEWART and ROBERT STEWART APPEARED
FOR THE COMPLAINANT, PRO SE;
CLAYTON LINDSEY, HINSHAW
& CULBERTSON, and JOHN H. VOGHT,
BECKMIRE, GARRITY & VOGHT APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT.
INTERIM OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by B. Forcade):
This matter is before the Board on an October 10,
1991,
complaint filed by Scott and Ten
Harris, Robert and Marlene
Stewart, Tim and Cathy Hoefle,
Francis and Joyce McAuliffe, Allen
and Sandra. Schlueter, Robert and Sylvia Crouse, Larry and Holly
Weilman,
Edward and Cathy Brackemyer,
Karen Homer and Larry and
Sandra Lawson
(Residents) against the Village of Cedarville
(Village).
The Residents, with the exception of the Lawsons,
all.
reside on Cedar Court in Cedarville,
Stephenson County,
Illinois.
(Tr. at 46.)1
The Lawsons reside on Cedar Street which is one
block from Cedar Court.
(Tr. at 46.)
The complaint alleges that
the Village violated 35 Ill. Adm. Code 306.102(a),
Malfunctions,
306.303, Excess Infiltration and 306.304, Overflows in the
operation of the village sewerage system.
Hearings were held on
April
17,
1992 and May 6, 1992,
in Freeport, Illinois.
Members
of the public and press attended the hearing.
The Village filed
its
final brief on June 23,
1992.
The Residents did not file a
final brief.
BACKGROUND
The population of Cedarville has been stable over the last
several years and is approximately 750.
(Tr. at 121.)
The Cedar
Court subdivision was built in 1974.
(Tr. at 120.)
The
Cedarville sanitary sewer system was constructed in 1972 or 1973.
(Tr. at 120.)
There are three lift stations and one treatment
plant in the village.
(Tr. at 121.)
The system design was based
on a population of 1,000 people.
(Tr. at 121.)
1
Tr.
at
references the transcript from the hearing
held ‘on May
6,
1992.
0135-LTh97
2
plant in the village.
(Tr.
at 121.)
The system design was based
on a population of 1,000 people.
(Tr.
at 121.)
The testimony shows that on the days of the sewage backups
in 1990,
Cedarville experienced a heavy rainfall, somewhere
between 2 to
6 inches.
(Tr. at 100, 108 and 160.)
The complaint
involves the flooding of the 10 homes located on Cedar Court
(Tr.
at 201.)
The Village is unaware of any other incidents of sewer
backups to resident’s basements in the village.
(Tr. at 215
&
216.)
Cedar Court is the lowest relief point in the area.
(Tr.
at 46,
Comp.
Exh.
14.)
Cedar Court is the last entry point
before the sewage enters the treatment plant.
(Tr. at 267.)
The complaint alleges three incidents of sewer backup on
September 4,
1986, June 29,
1990 and August
19,
1990.
In the
complaint,
the Residents request two forms of relief:
(1)
Order the Village to locate the problem (excess
rainfall infiltration and faulty sewer equipment)
and
take whatever actions necessary to correct problem.
(2)
Order Village to assume full responsibility for sewage
backups to residents’ homes hooked up to Village sewer
system.
It is clear from the testimony that on the dates alleged in
the
complaint there were problems with the operation of the
sewerage system, resulting in the backup of sewage into the homes
of the Residents and causing damage.
The Village does not
dispute that there was sewage backup in the homes on these dates.
The Board will review some of the testimony from the Residents to
show the extent of the problem.’
Mrs. Harris testified as to what she saw on September 24,
1986.
.there was water coming up out of our floor drains.
In certain areas of our basement it was between four
and six inches...It was black water... There was a
second floor drain in the garage area.
That was also
between four to six inches deep....We tried to get shop
vacs going, and we were trying to stay ahead of it,
it
continued to come up through the floor drains faster
than we could keep up with it.
Tr. at 20.
Mrs. Harris described the condition of the sewer manhole on
Cedar Court during the June 1990 incident.
01
35-0L898
3
It was to the street full with liquid sewage backup.
There was also solid human feces floating in the
manhole.
Tr.
at 30,
Comp.
Exh.
1-4.
Mrs. Stewart testified concerning the June 29,
1990,
incident.
...our home does not have floor drains.
The sewage raw
sewage backed up through our sewer pipe over six foot
high in our basement and shot out the top of our
laundry pipe where our washing machine goes into.
you can actually see this feces on the floor...you can
see it all on top of my washing machine,
and the
washing machine was also full of it when
I opened the
lid.
Tr. at 83,
Comp.
Exh.
29
&
30.
Mrs. Crouse testified as to the conditions at her home on
June 29,
1990.
Well,
the stuff was just bubbling out of the floor
drain....It was coming across that division that the
shower has on the shower stall and coming over into the
rug.
The toilet,
it was just bubbling up out of that
and coming on the floor and so forth.
Tr.
at 92.
FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS
A pump failure in one of the three lift stations was
“determined to be the cause of the sewage backup in September
1986.
(Tr. at 123.)
After the failure of the pump in the lift,
station, the Village replaced one of the two pumps
(one pump is a
backup pump)
in each lift station.
(Tr. at 124.)
The Village
also checked the sewer lines for obstructions and other problems.
(Tr. at 125.)
The Village also installed a phone alarm system
that phones the superintendent, his assistant and shop when a
pump fails.
(Tr. at 258.)
While there was also a pump failure on
June 29,
1990, the Village contends that the pump failed after
the sewage had backed-up into the homes on Cedar Court and that
the pump failure was not the cause of the backup,
(Tr.
at 131.)
There was no problem reported in the lift station on August 19,
1990.
(Tr. at 263.)
The Village believes that excess water in
the system from illegal connections of sump pumps and downspouts
O135-Ot~99
4
was the cause of the sewage backup on both dates in 1990.
(Tr.
at
134.)
After the June 29,
1990,
incident the Village contacted Mr.
Davis of Fehr
& Graham, the Village consulting engineer,
concerning the sewer problem.
(Tr. at 134
& 142.)
Fehr & Graham
have been the engineer for Cedarville since before 1976 and Mr.
Davis has been involved in several projects with Cedarville since
1976.
(Tr. at 283.)
In a letter of August
1,
1990, the engineer
suggested three possible remedies to fix the sewer problem.
(Comp. Exh.
14.)
The three solutions were:
1)
increase the
capacity of the sewer,
2) eliminate excess infiltration and
3)
installation of back-water check valves.
(Comp. Exh.
14, Tr. at
144..)
The engineer did not make a field inspection of the
sewerage system but based his recommendations on the sewerage
system maps and conversations with officials from the Village of
Cedarville.
(Tr. at 284.)
Mr. Davis felt a field inspection
would have been useless because it would have been done several
days after the incident and only normal flow would be present in
the sewer lines.
(Tr. at 285.)
The Village has taken the following actions to implement
recommendations
2 and
3 of the engineer’s suggested remedies.
In December of 1990,
the Village initiated a door-to-door
inspection for illegal hookups in all households in Cedarville.
(Tr.
at 229.)
The inspection consists
of. Mr. Buss,
the
superintendent of the village, and his assistant going to each
house and checking for illegal connections and following up on
any that they find.
(Tr. at 229.)
This inspection process is
expected to be completed by September of 1992.
(Tr.
at 230.)
At
the time of the hearing
(May 6,
1992) approximately 10 percent of
the homes had been inspected and half of those inspected had
illegal connections.2
(Tr. at 249.)
There are 394 homes
in
Cedarville.
(Tr. at 234.)
The illegal connections that have been
found by the inspection have been disconnected.
(Tr.
at 249.)
A
poster noting the ordinance against illegal hookups was posted in
the post office in Cedarville for about one or two weeks shortly
after the August 1990 incident.
(Tr. at 139,
Def.
Exh.
6.)
Section 2171 of the Cedarville village ordinance was passed
sometime prior to 1980
(Tr. at 136) and provides:
STORM WATER IN SANITARY
SEWER
No person and no
building, structure or establishment shall discharge
any rain water into the sanitary sewer system.
Def.
Exh.
4.
2
The Board notes that between December of 1990 and May of
1992 that 10
of the homes
in Cedarville had been inspected and
~he Village plans to inspect the other 90
in a
4 month period.
0135-0500
5
The Agency,
in a publication, stated that “An 8-inch
sanitary sewer can handle domestic wastewater flow from up to 465
homes; however,
it only takes 12
suxnp pumps operating at full
capacity to overload an 8—inch sanitary sewer.”
(Tr.
at 233, Def.
Exh.
14.)
The sanitary sewerage system in Cedarville is
comprised of mostly 8-inch sewer lines.
(Tr. at 233.)
The
village’s inspection of approximately 40 homes revealed twenty
illegal connections.
The Agency recommends that illegal
connections be disconnected.
(Tr. at 233.)
In the summer of 1991 the Village board added Section 2184
to the village ordinances.
(Tr. at 145,
Def. Exh.
7.)
This
ordinance requires the installation of an automatic valve to
prevent back-flow and a manual shut-off valve where the drain
intake
is below the required elevation.
(Def.
Exh.
7.)
The
ordinance further notes that “the risk of sewage escaping through
the malfunctioning of any valve so installed....shall be the
responsibility of the property owner.”
(Def. Exh.
7.)
At the March 4,
1991 Village board meeting, while the
proposed ordinance was under review by the village board, the
Residents presented the Village board with a petition containing
almost 200 signatures.
(Tr. at 60, Comp.
Exh.
22.)
The petition
asked the Village to look at other alternatives rather than
passing the proposed ordinance that places the responsibility on’
the homeowner to deal with the sewer problem.
(Tr. at 60,
Comp.
Exh.
22.)
The Harisses, Stewarts and Wellmans have installed the
valves required by the ordinance
in their homes.
(Tr.
at 77,
86
&
106.)
The Crouses are unable to install the valves due to the
way that their home is connected to the sewerage system.
(Tr. at
97.)
The Village has taken other measures to maintain the
sewerage system since the 1986 incident.
In 1986,
a portion of
the sewer line was jetted and televised checking for obstructions
or other problems.
(Tr. at 126.)
The jetting and televising of
the sewer lines is performed on an annual basis to selected
sections of the sewer line.
(Tr. at 226.)
The superintendent of
the village, Mr. Buss,
estimates that 80
of the sewer lines have
been jetted and televised.
(Tr. at 247.)
The alarm system to
warn when a pump has failed was upgraded to automatically call
the house of the superintendent of public works.
(Tr. at 127.)
Some manholes that were found to be in waterways have been
raised.
(Tr. at 237.)
The manhole on Cedar Court was not raised
because it is level with the street.
(Tr. at 255.)
In the mid to late 70’s an infiltration/inflow study was
performed in Cedarville.
(Tr.
at 293.)
While the tests showed an
increase
in flow due to infiltration or inflow, the increase fell
below EPA guidelines requiring further action.
(Tr. at 295.)
0t35-0501
6
The flow through the treatment plant was monitored weekly by
a weir gauge.
(Tr. at 244.)
The system is designed for 250,000
gallons per day peak flow.
(Tr.
at 213.)
The peak flow at the
treatment plant was not exceeded on any of the dates
in question.
(Tr. at 240, P1.
Exh.
11.)
The maximum and average flows for the
months of June and August in 1990 were below the design capacity.
(Tr. at 222.)
In 1991 the village installed a daily monitoring
recorder.
(Tr. at 222.)
While
Mr.’ Buss does not believe that water from the storm
water drainage system is infiltrating the sanitary system, dye
testing has not been performed to check the flow of the storm
water from the street grates.
(Tr. at 251.)
Mr. Buss plans to
perform smoke tests on the sewer lines once the visual inspection
of illegal connections is completed.
(Tr.
at 264.)
On August 23,
1990, the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
(Agency) notified the Village that it had received
complaints from residents.
(Comp. Exh.
18.)
The letter requested
the Village explain the incidents and inform the Agency of what
actions were being taken to eliminate the overflow problem.
(Camp. Exh.
18.)
On September 4,
1990,
Fred Peska, Mayor of
Cedarville, sent the Agency a letter in reply to their inquiry.
(Camp.
Exh.
19.)
The letter stated that Mr. Peska would
recommend the Village Board pass an ordinance making automatic
back—flow valves and manual shut—off valves mandatory.
(Comp.
Exh.
19.)
The Agency responded to this letter on September
7,
1990,
noting some problems associated with the use of these types
of valves and offering additional solutions for the problem.
(Comp.
Exh.
21.)
The Agency believed that the cause of the
backups was excess inflow/infiltration.
(Comp. Exh.
21.)
The
Agency stated that the installation of valves may shift the
backup problem to other residents.
(Coinp.
Exh.
21.)
The valves
also require maintenance and are not foolproof.
(Comp. Exh.
21.)
The Agency also noted that pressures exerted during flooding may
result
in piping failures and overflows from manholes.
(Camp.
Exh. 21.)
The letter further requested that the Village keep the
Agency informed of the developments in this matter.
(Comp. Exh.
21.)
DISCUSSION
“Overflows from sanitary sewers are expressly prohibited.”
(35 Ill. Adm. Code 306.304.)
Based on the testimony of the
Residents the Board finds that the Village of Cedarville violated
35 Ill. Adm. Code 306.304 on September 24,
1986, June 29,
1990
and August
19, 1990.
“Excess infiltration into sewers shall be eliminated, and
the maximum practicable flow shall be conveyed to the treatment
facilities.”
(35 Ill. Adm. Code 306.303)
The Village believes
~‘hatexcess inflow and infiltration was the cause of the backups
0135-0502
7
in 1990.
While the Village did have an ordinance prohibiting
rain water connections to the sewerage system,
it did not, enforce
the ordinance until after the sewer backup.
The Village also did
not have a system in place to monitor any increase in flow in the
sewer lines due to infiltration.
Therefore, the Board finds that
the Village violated 35 Ill. Adm. Code 306.303 by failing to
eliminate excess infiltration from the sewerage system.
The Village of Cedarville,
in installing and operating a
sanitary ‘sewerage system,
is required to install and operate the
system in a reliable manner.
All treatment works and associated facilities shall be
so constructed and operated to minimize violations of
applicable standards during such contingencies as
flooding, adverse weather, power failure, equipment
failure,
or maintenance, through such measures as
multiple units, holding tanks, duplicate power sources
or such other measures as may be appropriate.
35 Ill. Adm. Code 306.102(a).
A pump failure was determined to be the cause of the backup
i.n September of 1986.
While there was a backup pump at the lift
station,
it also experienced a failure and did not prevent the
overflow.
(Tr. at 124.)
The backups in June and August 1990
occurred during a heavy rainfall in the area but were not due to
a pump failure.
The backups from the Cedarville sanitary system
were due to the operation of the sanitary system.
Due tO the
system design and the operation of the system the sewer lines
were unable to handle the increased flow due to the adverse
weather and illegal connections.
Therefore, the Board finds tha
the Village of Cedarville has violated 35 Ill. Adm. Code
306.102(a).
Section 33(c)
of the Act states:
In making its orders and determinations, the Board
shall take into consideration all the facts and
circumstances bearing upon the reasonableness of the
emissions,
discharges,
or deposits involved including,
but not limited to:
1.
the character and degree of injury to,
or
interference with the protection of the health,
general welfare and physical property of the
people;
2.
the social and ‘economic value of the pollution
source;
0135-0503
8
3.
the suitability or unsuitability of the pollution
source to the area in which
it is located,
including the question of priority of location in
the area involved;
4.
the technical practicability and economic
reasonableness of reducing or eliminating the
emissions, discharges or deposits resulting from
such pollution source; and
5.
any subsequent compliance.
Sanitary sewer backups have greatly interfered with the
lives of the Residents.
Private property has been damaged by the
backups.
The backups have rendered the basements in the homes of
the Residents unusable
for a period of time.
The backups have
also created unsanitary conditions in the homes of the Residents
and in the streets.
Such conditions certainly threaten the
public’s health and general welfare.
The backup of sewage into a residence creates a substantial
risk of electrocution and the spread of disease.
The backup of
sewage in this case was extensive enough to spread to lower—level
living areas of the Residents’ homes.
The photos and testimony
submitted at hearing reveal the extent and seriousness of the
hazard created by the presence of raw sewage in the homes of the
Residents.
Prompt remedial action is required to avoid the
possible dangers that result from sewage backups due to the risk
of electrocution and the threat to public health.
The pollution source in this instance is the sanitary sewer
system.
When functioning properly, sanitary sewers have great
economic and social value.
However, when a sewerage system
malfunctions,
the value is seriously diminished to those who
experience the malfunctioning first hand.
With regard to the suitability of the location of the
pollution source,
it is suitable but it is imperative that
sanitary sewers function properly due to their inherent close
proximity to the residential environment.
The Board must consider the “technical practicability and
economic reasonableness” of eliminating the pollution problem.
(Section 33
(c)(4).)
The Village contends that increasing the
capacity of the sewers would be cost prohibitive to a village the
size of Cedarville.
The Village did take steps to achieve compliance and prevent
future backups of the sewerage system.
While there have been no
reports of backup since the August 1990 incident, this is not a
clear indication that the problem has been alleviated.
The
backups all occurred during heavy rainfalls.
It may be the case
0 135-050k
9
that there has not been a substantial enough rainfall to cause a
backup.
The Board also notes there were no backups from the
August 1990 incident to the time when the Village began to take
steps to eliminate the problem.
The Residents contend that the measures taken by the Village
to correct the problem are insufficient.
The Residents believe
that the ordinance requiring the addition of back-flow valves
will only shift the problem to other areas and that the main
objective of this ordinance was to shift the liability of any
backups on the Residents.
The Agency,
in
its September 7,
1990,
letter to th,e Mayor of,,
Cedarville discussed some of the available solutions to the sewer
problem.
Your basic conclusion,
as we understand it from the
letter, was to mandate automatic backflow valves and
manual shut off valves.
While it may seem on the
surface to be the least costly alternative
(particularly if individual reside’nts are required to
foot the bill),
such actions will likely only shift the
backup problem to other residents.
These types
of
valves have several other drawbacks as well.
Periodic
maintenance is required to keep them operable and they
are by no means foolproof.
Pressures exerted during
flooding can also result in piping failures and
overflows from manholes.
There are other modifications
available such as overhead sewers
which may be
appropriate.
Financial assistance from the Village
might also be considered.
We would also encourage the Village to aggressively
pursue elimination of the inflow and infiltration that
is causing the problem in the first place.
Issuing a
notice prohibiting sump pump connections and checking
manholes for leaks is only the first step in this
effort.
We have enclosed literature to assist you in
this regard as well.
Comp.
Exh.
21.
The Board shares the concerns of the Agency and the
esiclents concerning the adequacy of the measures taken by the
~1illagein correcting the problem in the sewerage system.
Requiring residents to install back—flow valves to prevent sewer
backups into homes is an acceptable means of providing some
improvement in the reliability of the sewerage system.
While the
Board finds this to be one of many acceptable measures it does
not believe that it alone is an adequate measure under the facts
presented in this case.
The addition of chec’k valves does not
address the prOblem of excess inflow\infiltration.
The Board
0135-0505
10
makes no holding on the language of the ordinance concerning the
issue of liability due to the possible failure of these valves.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion the Board finds that Cedarville violated 35
Ill. Adm. Code 306.102(a),
306.303 and 306.304.
Having found
the
Village in violation of the Board’s rules and regulations,
the
Board must next determine the appropriate remedy.
The record
clearly indicates that the Village has taken and continues to
take steps to alleviate the problems with the sewers.
However,
the Board’s finding of violation combined with the potential
health risk resulting from future violations requires that
a more
formal program be mandatorily implemented.
See City of Freeport
v. PCB (2d Dist.
1989),
187 Ill. App.
3d 745, 544 N.E.2d
1, City
of Freeport (September 8,
1988), PCB 86—193,
92 PCB 107, Cupp
V.
South Palos Township Sanitary District
(May 29,
1984), PCB 83-
104,
58 PCB 223, Daun v.
Village of Roselle
(December 4,
1980),
PCB 80-17,
40 PCB 45, Village of Bourbonnais
v. IEPA (October 19,
1983),
PCB 83—71,
54 PCB 245, .IEPA v. Caseyville Township and St.
Clair Township (February 19,
1981), PCB 79-122,
40 PCB 463 and
Bobby L. Rush and Martha D. Rush v. Barrington (November 29,
1979), PCB 79—129,
36 PCB 175.
REMEDY
The purpose of the remedy is to bring the sanitary sewer
system into compliance with the Board’s regulations.
The aim of
the remedy is to identify and eliminate any existing problems in
the Cedarville sewerage system and develop a monitoring and
inspection program to minimize problems that may arise in the
future.
A pump failure at the lift station was believed to be
the cause of the backup in 1986.
Excess inflow and infiltration
appear to be the underlying cause of the backups in 1990..
A pump failure was the cause of the sewer overflow in 1986.
After that incident the Village replaced the pumps
in the lift
stations and improved the alarm system on the pumps.
The Village
reports that the incidents in 1990 were not caused by a pump
failure.
The complaint lists no other incident or problem with
the operation of the lift station.
Because the pump failure was
related to only the first incident and the Village has taken
action to correct the problem the Board will require no
additional action by the Village to alter the operation of the
lift station.
However, the Board notes that the proper operation
of the lift stations is fundamental to providing reliable and
dependable sewer service.
The Village concluded that the overflows in 1990 resulted
from excess inflow and is testing to confirm the role,
if any,
of
infiltration.
The testimony supports this conclusion.’ The
backups occurred during periods of heavy rainfall and a
0 135-0506
11
significant number, of illegal connections have been discovered
and removed.
Determining the full extent of the inflow and
infiltration problem and the condition of the sewerage system is
ongoing.
The Village. continues to take measures to locate and
alleviate the problem,
(door—to—door. inspection and smoke test).
The Board directs Cedarville to develop a compliance plan to
be submitted to the Board by October 13,
1992.
The compliance
plan shall detail the steps necessary to achieve and maintain
compliance with Sections 306.102,
306.303 and 306.304.
The
compliance plan shall include specific dates at which particular
actions are to be completed and a date when compliance with
Sections 306.102,
306.303, and 306.304 will be achieved.
The
plan shall note the expected dates of any government approval of
any remedial action, such as relief sewers,
if so required.
The
compliance plan,
in essence, should do four things:
1) provide
Cedarville’s best evaluation of the source of the sewer overflows
and its best assessment of the present state of the sewerage
system,
2)
identify the specific steps Cedarville intends to
implement to eliminate the problems,
3)
state the specific date
by which each remedial action will be completed,
and
4)
identify
the long term monitoring methods that will ensure basement
backups do not occur in the future.
In developing a compliance
plan Cedarville may consider the following factors.
There are several procedures available to monitor the flow
through the sewerage system and detect the presence of excess
water.
Inflow and Infiltration Analysis and Sewer System
Evaluation Surveys provide the needed information to evaluate
inflow and infiltration problems.
If these reports have been
prepared, Cedarville should provide the Board with copies.
Once
the source of inflow or infiltration is fully verified, the
necessary steps can be taken to eliminate the source of excess
water.
Cedarville should continue with its door—to—door
inspections with follow-up to find and eliminate illegal hookups.
The results from this inspection will provide the data needed to
measure the magnitude of the inflow problem.
A long term program also needs to be developed to monitor
and control excess inflow and infiltration in the system.
The
Village shall submit a compliance plan that develops and
implements a program to eliminate excess inflow and infiltration
into the system in the future.
This program could include a
public awareness program, which utilizes publication in a
newspaper of general circulation and customer mailings coupled
with door-to-door inspectionè and all legal remedies to force
homeowner compliance.
This program could also include a program
to detect any increase of flow in the sewerage system due to
rain.
The compliance plan shall also note the anticipated
frequency at which inspections of the sewerage system to detect
increases in inflow and infiltration will be performed.
0135-0507
12
The Village may submit to the Board a copy of any previous
reports and/or studies on the maintenance and operation of the
Cedarville sewerage system compiled since 1986 relevant to the
backups on Cedar Court.
This information may include any studies
or reports concerning other available options to improve the
Cedarville sewerage system; while noting that ‘the overall design
of the system would appear adequate for Cedarville”s present
population, the addition of a relief sewer should be considered.
It is not’ the Board’s intention to require Cedarville to
conduct any new studies or to copy volumes of reports and studies
to the Board.
The Board seeks to obtain any readily available
information that Cedarville has that supports the compliance
plan.
The submission of maps showing the sewer layout and the
location of the lift stations would be beneficial to the Board in
reviewing the sewerage system.
From the complaint and the
testimony the area affected by the sewage problem is limited to
the residents located on Cedar Court.
To limit the amount of
information submitted to the Board,
Cedarville may exclude any
document or portion of a document that relates to other sections
of the village.
If Cedarville has documents which it believes
would be helpful to the Board
but the length of ,such documents
make it impractical to copy,
Cedarville may submit to the Board a
list identifying the document and indicating the size of the
document.
The Board has found that the Village violated the provisions
of the Board’s rules and regulations resulting in sewage backups
to the Resident’s home on September 4,
1986, June 29,
1990 and
August 19,
1990.
The Village is required to obtain future
compliance with the requirements for the operation of a sewerage
system as set forth
in the Board’s rules and regulations.
The
Board makes no finding concerning any future liability of the
Village.
It is the Board’s intention to issue a final order in this
matter, incorporating ‘the compliance plan and ordering Cedarville
to cease and desist from future violations of the Environmental
Protection Act or Board regulations as of December 31,
1992,
or
the completion date specified. in the compliance plan from
Cedarville, whichever date is earlier.
Cedarville should
complete all remedial actions as soon as possible.
In the event
Cedarville cannot complete all remedial action by December 31,
1992,, it may file a motion with the Board to extend the effective
date of the cease and desist order.
Such motion must include
affidavits and supporting information to demonstrate that
remedial activities cannot be completed sooner.
The Residents did not request that the Board impose a
penalty against Cedarville in this matter.
The Board declines to
013.5-0508
13
impose a penalty against Cedarville at this time.
However,
failure to make progr’ess in addressing the problem could lead to
penalties against Cedarville and limitations on the factors of
the sewerage system.
The Board will review the appropriateness
of a penalty considering the factors provided by Section 42(h)
of
the Act in its final order.
ORDER
It is the order of the Pollution Control Board that:
1.
The Village of Cedarville has violated 35 Iii.
Adm. Code
306.102,
306.303 and 306.304.
2.
The Village shall submit a compliance plan containing the
specific steps and timetables for’achieving compliance and
maintaining future compliance with Sections 306.102, 306.303
and 306.304.
3.
The Village shall complete its inspection and removal of
illegal hookups and finish the SSES survey by December 1,
1992.
The Village shall submit with the compliance plan a
detailed report on the status of and the results from the
program of inspection and removal of illegal hookups and the
smoke test,
as well as any new incidents of basement
backups.
4.
The above information shall be submitted to the Board,
the Agency and the complainants by October 13,
1992.
5.
The Agency and complainants may file comments on
Cedarville’s compliance plan, comments shall be submitted to
the Board by November 12, 1992.
6.
The Board will retain’jurisdiction in this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Dorothy M. Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
do hereby cer~i~that the above interim opinion and order
was adopted on the
~
~-
day of
~~Le-~
‘
,
,
1992,
by a vote of
7~-
.
~
‘,~“.“,
~
/~/~~J
Dorothy M.
Githn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
0135-0509
