ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
January
27, 1971
SPRINGFIELD
SANITARY
DISTRICT
)
)
)
v.
)
#PCB 70—32
)
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
)
Opinion
of
the
Board (by Mr.
Currie):
The Springfield Sanitary District petitions for permission
to discharge ten million gallons of raw sewage daily to Spring
Creek for 30 working days while repairing an interceptor sewer.
The Envirenmental Protection Agency and innumerable affected citizens
vigorously object, and the Agency in a counterclaim asks us to
order that the sewer be corrected forthwith without discharging
raw sewage.
We agree with the Agency.
Normally
the
Sanitary
DIstrict
gives
its
sewage
secondar
treatment,
and
in
accordance
w±thRules
and
Regulations
SWB—l
is
buIlding
additional
improved
facilities
CR.
67).
Twice
already,
however, an old interceptor sewer has ruptured, causing the dis-
charge of raw sewage into
Spring
Creek (R~21).
The results of sewage discharges to Spring Creek, as expected,
have been unsavory.
DurIng a July rupture dissolved oxygen levels
went down below one mg/i
(3.
63); sludge deposIts have been found
on the
cst
ream bottom
(R. 297); fish have been killed in the Sangamon
RIver 5ownstream from its confluence with Spring Creek
(B.
330—32);
the water in the creek has been black and smelly
(B. 332—33); bottom
organisms in the River itself are far more indicative of pollution
below the confluence of Spring Creek than above
CR.
285—90).
There
W no suggestion that these conditions are attributable to sources
other than the Springfield Sanitary District.
The District
testifled that “there is a very definite danger” that another
rupture may occur at any time
(B.
55).
It is perfectly plain that the existence of a sewer likely
to break and discharge raw sewage to a small stream constitutes
a ~crious water pofluticn hazard.
The possible adverse effects
of such a break are indeed the reasos for the Sanitary District’s
variance
request.
ThLs ce.se flts squarely Intc the statutory
—
181
provision that
“no person shall.
.
.threaten.
.
.
the discharge
of any contaminants.
.
.
so as to cause.
.
.
water pollution
in
Illinois.
.
.or so as to violate regulations or standards’
(Environmental Protection Act,
§ 12(a)).
The word
“threat”
does
not imply a deliberate or belligerent act or an open statement of
intention;
it refers in this context to the existence
of
a hazard,
and is intended
to permit the Board to act before the pollution
actually
takes place.
Without such authority the Board could
only lock the stable after the horses have been spirited away.
It is plain from the above summary of the evidence that
another rupture could very well “create
a nuisance,’ or be
“detrimental or injurious
to public health,
safety or welfare,
or to domestic,
commercial,
industrial, agricultural,
recreational,
or other legitimate uses,
or to.
.
.fish,
or other aquatic life,”
~
3 (n),
and therefore cause water pollution
as defined in the
statute itself.
Moreover,
a rupture could release
to
the stream
“substances,
.
.
that will settle
to form putrescent
or otherwise
objectionable sludge deposits; or which will
form bottom deposit.s
that may be detrimental to bottom biota” and
“materials
producing color, odor or other conditions in such degree as
to create
a nuisance,”
all in violation of Rule 1.03(a)
and
(c)
of SWB—14,
which remains in effect by virtue of section
49
of the Act, and
could reduce dissolved oxygen in the creek below the levels of
5.0 mg/i
for 16 hours per day
and 4.0
at any time,
as prescribed
by Rule
1,05
(a) of the same regulations.
The latter Rule specifies
that the Sanitary Water Board
“may declare specific streams or
head water sections of streams
to be unsuitable
for sustaining
fish and aquatic life;’ no
such declaration has been made
for
Spring Creek, and consequently the dissolved oxygen standard is
applicable.
The Sanitary District suggests that compliance with SWB-~l4
is not required until July 1972
(R.87), but we disaaree.
That
is
the date set by
the implementation plan
(Rule
1.08, parasraph
14)
for “construction of municipal treatment works improvements
to
adequately meet
these water quality standards.”
It
is
the equivalent
of
a variance given to those who must build
new plants in order
to treat
their discharges.
It does
not exempt those who have
such facilities
from compliance with
the standards
until 1972.
And the Sanitary District’s present problem is not one falling
within the delayed compliance provision of Rule 1.08’s paragraph
14.
Finally,
there is no merit
to the District’s apparent suggestion
that, because SWB—l4 does not prescribe
a biolo~icalstandard
in
terms of bottom organisms,
tests showing the presence
of pollution-
tolerant organisms
are irrelevant
(R.306).
Such tests are clearly
relevant to
the question of adverse effects upon aquatic life,
~qhicb
indicate pollution under
the statute itself.
The prescription
of specific
~equ1ations
croverning
a stream does not and cannot
repeal
the
statutory prohibition against causing water pollution,
which applies whether or not
the regulations themselves are
also
~riolated,
I
—
182
We
therefore
find
that
the
Springfield
Sanitary
District
has
threatened
to
discharge
contaminants
so
as to cause water pol-
lution and so as to violate SWB—l4,
all in violation of section
12(a)
of the Environmental Protection Act.
The District proposes
to correct this violation by committing
another,
that
is,
by bypassing
raw sewage directly to the creek
while
repairing
the
sewer.
To
do
so
would
violate
section
12(a)
for
the
reasons
given
above.
We
find
it
wholly
unpersuasive
that
the
oroposed
bypass
is
scheduled
for
the
winter.
It
is
true
that
biochemical
oxygen
demand
is
exerted
more
slowly
at low temperatures,
so
that
the
immediate
effect
on
dissolved
oxygen
values
would
be
less
dramatic
(R.25)
.
But
the
record
is
clear
that
raw
sewage
is
likely
to form objectionable sludge deposits on the stream
bottom,
which
exert
a
continuing
oxygen-depleting
effect
(R.l62—66)
and
which
smother
desirable
bottom-dwelling
organisms
(R.296).
It
is
also
clear
that
the
discharge
is
likely
to
be
very
smelly
and
very
unsightly
(R.229);
that
children
often
play
near
the
ditch
that
would
be used
for
bypassing
(R.226);
and
that
raw
sewage
contains
enormous
numbers
of
bacteria
(R.l65),
some
of
which
are
likely
to
be
dangerous.
~‘1ithout
receiving
additional
testimony
to
the
same
effect,
it
is
abundantly
obvious
that
the
proposed
bypass
would
cause
water
pollution
and
violate
both
the
statute
and
SWB—14,
Rule
1.03.
The
District
claims
that
it will
suffer
hardship
if
it
cannot
bypass
the
sewage
because
to
oump
the
sewage
around
the
repair
zone
and
transport
it
to
the
plant
for
treatment
would
cost
an
estimated
$75,000
as
compared
with
$67,090
for
the
repair
work
itself,
and
that
the
extra
money
is
simply
not
available
in
its
budget
(R,23),
It
is
clear
that
pumping
the
sewage
around
the
repair
zone
is
feasible;
EPA
testified,
without
contradiction,
that: Decatur
had
done
just
that.
when
confronted
with
a
similar
problem
not
long
before
(R.346).
EPA
also
challenged
the
$75,000
estimate,
which
was
obtained
without
competitive
bidding
(101—02)
and
offered
evidence
that pipes
used
in
the
pumping
operation
could
be
sold
for
other
uses
afterwards
in
order
to
reduce
costs
(R.348-49).
We think
$75,000,
if
that
much
be
required,
is
well
worth
spending
in
order
to
avoid
desecrating
Spring
Creek
once
again
with
raw
sewage.
The
cost
of
avoidincr
pollution
during
repairs
is
a
part
of
the
cost
of
sewage
collection
and
treatment,
and
it
should
be
borne
by
the
citizens
of
the
Sanitary
District.
There
is
no
proof
that
to
spend
th:Ls
money
would
inflict
an
arbitrary
or
un-
reasonable
hardship.
The
District
testified
that
it
had
authority
to
issue
bonds,
if
ordered
to
by
this
Board,
in
order to finance
the
pumping
facilities
to
avoid
noilution,
and
that
it
had by no
means
reached
the
:Lis;its
of
its
bonding authority
(Ft.
317.)
We
shall order
the District
to issue the bonds if they are needed.
Section
46
of the Act makes
a referendum unnecessary in such cases.
The District
says it will comply with
such an order
(R.26,362).
The request
for a variance is denied;
the District is ordered
to repair
the offending sewer posthaste without bypassing sewage
to the waters of the State,
and to issue bonds if necessary
to
finance the
job.
This opinion constitutes
the Board’s-findings
of fact and conclusions
of law.
ORDER
The Pollution Control Board having considered the record in
this
case,
it is hereby ordered as follows:
1.
The petition
of the Springfield Sanitary District
for
a
variance to permit bypassing of sewage
to Spring Creek
during sewer repair is denied.
2.
The Springfield Sanitary District shall within thirty
days from the date of
this order submit to the Environ-
mental Protection Agency
firm
plans
for repairing
the
interceptor sewer in question as expeditiously as
is
practicable,
and without bypassing sewage.to the waters
of Illinois.
3.
Upon approval of these plans
-the District
shall carry
out such repair as expeditiously
as is practicable,
and
in no event shall
the completion
of
the
project
be
delayed beyond May
1,
1971.
4.
The Springfield Sanitary District shall issue, without
referendum,
such revenue or general obligation bonds as
may be necessary to finance the above improvements,
including the cost of facilities
to avoid.bypassing
sewage
to the waters of Illinois.
5.
The Springfield Sanitary District shall not discharge
sewage to the waters of Illinois
as
a result of repairs
to
the interceptor sewer in issue.
I, Regina E.
Ryan, Clerk of the Pollution Control Board, hereby
certify that the Board adopted the above opinion and order
this
27th day of January,
1971.
/
/
Regina
F.
Ryan
Clerk
of
the
Board