ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    November 15, 1979
    JAMES
    P.
    GENTILCORE,
    Complainant,
    v.
    )
    PCB 79—74
    LA GRANGE HIGHLANDS SANITARY
    )
    DISTRICT,
    Respondent.
    MR. BLAIR BRAVERMAN and MR. BRUCE ENTMAN, OAK LAWN,
    ILLINOIS,
    appeared on behalf of Complainant.
    MR. JOHN R.
    HIEBER, CHICAGO,
    ILLINOIS, 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
    (a)
    and 602
    (b) of Chapter
    3:
    Water
    Pollution by failing to adequately maintain sanitary sewer
    lines resulting in overflows of the sewers.
    A hearing was
    held on September 19,
    1979
    in La Grange Highlands,
    Illinois.
    Testimony of witnesses from both parties was heard.
    Complainant indicated that sanitary sewer overflows
    occur during periods of rainfall causing sewage to back up
    into Complainant’s home and yard.
    Testimony shows that the
    situation has existed since at least
    1974 and that Respondent
    and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency were both
    formally notified of Complainant’s problem in 1976
    (R.
    6—8).
    Nothing has subsequently been done to alleviate the problem.
    A witness
    for Respondent testified that investigation
    and remedial action dealing with the sanitary sewers in
    Respondent’s district was begun in 1968.
    Federal funding of
    sewer system upgrading has been applied for to counter
    infiltration and inflow
    (R.
    25,
    42).
    However,
    a more immediate
    resolution of Complainant’s problem was suggested through
    installation of a relief connection resulting in
    a redistribution
    or redirection of flow from Complainant’s property.
    The
    estimated cost of the relief connection
    is $7,000 and is not
    covered by a grant program.
    Bids are being taken for the
    work.
    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
    36—109
    —2—
    occurs repeatedly during periods of rain,
    it is clear that
    Respondent has not complied with the rule
    in minimizing
    violations during flooding or adverse weather.
    The Board
    finds the Respondent
    in violation of Rule 601
    (a) of the
    Board’s Water Rules.
    Rule 602
    (b) of the Water Rules expressly prohibits
    excess infiltration and overflows
    from sanitary sewers.
    Respondent has recognized the problems with its system and
    thus has instituted step one survey work in the federal
    funding procedures
    (R.
    25).
    The overflow of raw sewage into
    Complainant’s home caused by the excessive infiltration and
    inflow to the system
    is a clear violation 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
    home has become a dangerous source of disease carrying
    bacteria and has become,
    at times, uninhabitable.
    Furthermore,
    sewage systems and sewage treatment facilities
    are of social and economic value only when properly functioning
    and adequately maintained.
    The Board has examined the
    factors bearing on the
    technical practicability and economic reasonableness of
    reducing or eliminating the overflows.
    An immediate solution
    to the overflow has been suggested by Respondent.
    The Board
    finds this remedy acceptable and the costs for implementation
    of this plan not prohibitive.
    Although this measure may
    alleviate the problem
    in one section of Respondent’s sewer
    system,
    Respondent should pursue a permanent solution to the
    problem through continued participation in the sewage system
    grant program.
    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).
    Within 30 days of the date of this Order,
    Respondent
    shall submit to the Agency the plan it intends
    to use
    in eliminating overflows on Complainant’s property
    through utilization of bypasses, relief connections or
    any other effective means.
    A description of the work
    to be performed,
    an estimate of its cost and a schedule
    for completion shall be included in the plan.
    Within
    30
    days of the date the report is submitted,
    the Agency
    shall respond as to its approval or disapproval of the
    plan.
    36—
    110
    —3—
    3).
    Respondent shall begin implementing the plan described
    in 2)
    above as soon as Agency approval
    is given.
    IT IS
    SO ORDERED.
    Mr. Goodman abstains.
    I, Christan
    L.
    Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control
    Board, hereb~~rtifythe above Opinio
    adopted on the
    ____________________
    day of
    ________________
    l979byavoteof
    ~
    h
    stan L. Mof
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    36—111

    Back to top