ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

December 19, 1974

JOSEPH V. GIFFIN

COMPLAINANT

)

v.

)

PCB 74—316

VILLAGE OF HINSDALE, a

municipal corporation

RESPONDENT

)

MR. JOSEPH V.

GIFFIN, ATTORNEY,

as Complainant pro se

MR.

JAMES

ARTHUR

THORPE,

ATTORNEY,

in behalf of RESPONDENT

OPINION

AND

ORDER

OF

THE BOARD

(by Mr. Marder)

This

action

involves

a

citizen

complaint filed on August 27, 1974.

The Complaint alleges violation of Sect.

12

(a) of the Environmental

Protection Act.

Hearing was held in the Village of Hinsdale on Nov-

ember 12, 1974.

The Village of Hinsdale is a municipal corporation organized in

1873 and is governed by a president and a board of trustees.

The

functions of the city are carried out under the provisions of

“The

Illinois Municipal Code of 1961,

as amended.”

The instant complaint

rests on the allegation that the city has and continues to operate

its sewer system in such a manner as to cause backing up of sewage

during periods of heavy rainfall.

It

is further alleged that the in-

adequacy of the transport system and resulting backup constitute

water pollution as defined in Section

12

(a)

of the Act.

At hearing Mr. Giffin

(who appeared as complainant pro Se)

described

the situation in the area.

Mr. Giffin alleges that during periods of

moderate to heavy rainfall a manhole cover at Third and Princeton

Streets blows off and raw sewage overflows

(R.

5).

He further states

contaminants are found both in the street and on his lawn after such

incidents

(R.

5)

.

Allegations of bad odors after such incidents were

also cited

(R. 6).

Mr. E. Webb (Director of Public Service) was then called as

a wit-

ness

for Complainant.

Mr. Webb proceeded to describe the reasons for

the alleged problems.

The following quote details the situation:

“During these periods of heavy rains, which we

have maybe five or six a year, literally

-

in addi-

tion to the Third Street system here becoming over-

loaded, the entire community overloads in essence

to the point where all the sewers in this area back

up, and selectively low spots

in the community have

14—743

---

—2—

have been subject to some basement flooding

as

a result of the overloading.”

(R.

9)

Mr. Webb then described a plan which the city has on file which

in his opinion would solve the problem.

The plan calls for construct-

ion of 42-inch,

36-inch, 24-inch, and smaller pipes,

as well as the

elimination of all street drains that are now connected to the com-

bined sewers

(R.

11).

The plan in essence is the construction of

a

storm sewer to relieve the burden of the present combined system.

In

addition to the hydraulic capacity, Mr. Webb discussed the overload-

ing of the Hinsdale treatment plant.

It is alleged that flows of up

to 20xl06

gpd

are received by the plant, which has a capacity of about

5xl06

gpd.

It is felt that the above plan would significantly reduce

storm water flow to the treatment plant

(R. 14).

The cost of such a sewer modification is alleged to be $545,360

(R.

13).

Mr. Webb stated that the village has no funds on hand to

finance the improvement.

The village bonding indebtedness

is $3,491,000

against an assessed valuation of $82,077,826

(R.

12).

Under cross-examination Mr. Webb stated that the overflow from the

present sewer system presently flows via the storm water system to a

tributary of Flag Creek

CR.

14).

During closing statements Mr.

Thorpe

(attorney, Village of Hinsdale)

admitted that the allegations of the Complaint were true.

He further

stated that the village had attempted to relieve the situation by com-

mencing a special improvement.

However,

the Circuit Court ruled this

to be a general improvement which could not be accomplished by special

assessment.

The finding of the Court is presently on appeal.

The

Board finds that the pending appeal has nq bearing on any questions

which have been brought before the Board in the instant case.

After consideration of the evidence elicited at hearing, the Board

finds that Respondent has violated Section 12

(a)

of the Act.

In

reaching this decision and formulating its order in this matter, the

Board has been cognizant of Section 33

(C) of the Act.

We find that:

the violations did and do cause an interference with the protection of

the health and physical property of the people; the question of social

and economic value of the source

(sewer)

is not relevant, nor is the

suitability of the source; the question of economic reasonableness and

technological feasibility of compliance was amply covered and indeed

endorsed by the village in its attorney’s

closing statement.

Petitioner should examine Section

46

(a)

of the Act,

for a possible

means of financing the sewer modification.

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of

law of the Board.

ORDER

IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that:

14

—

744

---

—3—

1.

Respondent is found in violation of Sect. .12

(a)

of the Environ-

mental Protection Act.

2.

Respondent shall cease and desist violations of the Act within

nine months of the date of this Order.

3.

Respondentshall

file with the Illinois Environmental Protect-

ion Agency at 2200 Churchill Road, Springfield,

Illinois, 62706,

within sixty

(60)

days of the date of this Order a compliance

plan, detailing how and when Respondent shall comply with Order

#2 above.

I, Christan L

Moffett,

Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, certify that the above Opinion and Order was adopted by the

Board on the 19th day of December,

1974,

by a vote of

4 to

0.

14

—