ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February 25,
1988
IBP,
INC.,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 86—174
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
RICHARD
J.
KISSEL (MARTIN, CRAIG, CHESTER AND SONNENSCHEIN)
APPEARED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER;
AND
E.
WILLIAM HUTTON AND KATHLEEN
C.
BASSI
(ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY) APPEARED ON BEHALF RESPONDENT.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by J.D. Dumelle):
This matter
comes before the Board upon an October
10,
1986
Petition
for Variance filed
by
IBP,
Inc.
(“IBP”).
IBP requests
variance from the requirements
of
35 Iii.
Adm. Code 304.120(b)
(total suspended solids “TSS”
in discharged effluent)
to enable
it to continue
to operate a beef slaughter and processing
facility
in Joslin,
Illinois.
IBP also requests variance from
its NPDES Permit No. 1L0003913
relating to TSS pursuant to
35
Ill.
Adm. Code
309.184.
IBP asks
that variance be granted
for a
term of one year while
it conducts
a plan
of study to determine
how to comply with the above—stated requirements.
Specifically,
IBP seeks to raise
the standards
for monthly averages and daily
maximums
for TSS concentrations from
25 mg/i
to
54 mg/l and from
50 mg/i
to 108 mg/l,
respectively.
IBP’s original petition included
a statement waiving
its
right
to
a hearing on the petition.
On December
1, 1986
the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency) filed
a motion
for leave to file Agency Recommendation instanter
and Agency
Recommendation.
That motion was granted
by Board Order
of
December
5,
1986.
The Agency recommended denial
of variance for
failure
to set forth
a full and detailed compliance plan.
On
December
3,
1986, IBP filed
an amended petition for variance,
requesting
a hearing
on the petition.
Subsequent negotiations
between
IBP and the Agency, however, obviated the necessity for
hearing
(see Board Order, October
15,
1987).
On August 27,
1987,
the Agency filed an Amended Recommendation,
recommending
that the
variance be granted subject
to certain specified conditions.
86—313
—2—
On February
1,
1988
IBP filed
a motion
for expedited
decision.
After noting that an agreement had been reached
between
the Agency and IBP “concerning
the granting of
(the
recommended)
variance and the conditions
to be attached
to
that
grant,”
IBP stated that
it has been expending its efforts
in
attempting
to comply with
the compliance schedule set forth
in
the
(recommended)
variance.
IBP states that
it “believes
that
the requisite
facts are that the variance should be granted under
the conditions
as set forth
in the Agency Recommendation.”
IPB’s
motion for expedited decision
is hereby granted.
IBP owns and operates
a beef slaughter and processing plant
located near Joslin,
Illinois
in Rock Island County.
IBP
estimates
kill rates
at 2500 head per day and processing at 3200
head per day.
The extra
700 head per day comes from IBP’s other
facilities.
As part
of its plant,
IBP owns and operates wastewater
treatment facilities.
These consist of
a manure pit,
a dissolved
air flotation
unit.,
a raw sewage lift station,
two anaerobic
lagoon cells,
a bar screen,
an activated sludge system,
an
intra—
channel clarifier and chlorination.
A second treatment scheme
utilizing lagoons
is
also available.
Discharge from IBP’s
facilities is
to the Rock River,
a tributary of the Mississippi
River and a water
of the State.
On May 9,
1983, IBP submitted
to the Agency
a construction
permit application
for
the present activated sludge system.
That
application was initially denied for several reasons,
including
the Agency’s concern that the use of an intra—channel clarifier
would not allow the facility to meet effluent limitations.
Following resubmittal,
the construction permit was issued on
September
19,
1983.
Following construction
of the new facility,
many problems
of
a design nature occurred.
The most significant
is the failure
of the intra—channel clarifier.
It appears
that
because
of
the design of this unit,
IBP cannot control
the amount
of sludge solids returned
to the activated sludge
process.
As
a
result,
mixed liquor solids have generally been
in the 1,000
to
1,500 mg/i range, which
is considered
low.
Without operational
control over sludge return,
IBP cannot attain steady
state
operation of the activated sludge units.
Also,
IBP has had
difficulties with
the structures which hold the mixers
in the
activated sludge unit.
However,
it appears that these structures
have finally been repaired satisfactorily.
On April
3,
1987,
IBP submitted
an application
for
construction of
a blue chrome tannery at its Joslin facility.
Wastes generated
by operation
of the tannery would
be discharged
to the WWTP.
IBP estimates the following increases
in loadings:
86—314
—3—
Anaerobic Lagoon Influent Loadings
Original Design
Existing
Proposed
Wastewater
Loadings
Loadings
Loadings
Characteristics
lbs/day/mg/i
lbs/day/mg/l
lbs/day/mg/l
Flow, mgd
1.8 mgd
1.47 mgd
1.73
mgd
Biochemical
Oxygen Demand
19,000
1,900
16,900
1,380
26,600
1,840
Total Suspended
Solids
24,000
1,600
11,500
940
23,400
1,620
Oil & Grease
9,200
620
5,040
410
9,500
660
Chlorides
12,000
810
16,800
1,370
12,400
860
Sulfates
490
40
3,030
210
Sulfides
0
0
1,200
83
Chromium
0.25*
0.02*
6.25
.043
Activated Sludge Plant Influent Loadings
Original Design
Existing
Proposed
Wastewater
Loadings
Loadings
Loadings
Characteristics
lbs/day/rng/l
lbs/day/mg/i
lbs/day/mg/l
Flow, mgd
1.8 mgd
1.26 mgd
1.48 mgd
Biochemical
Oxygen Demand
3,000
200
12,000
114
2,940
240
Total Suspended
Solids
3,000
200
1,590
151
2,470
220
Ammonia Nitrogen
2,700
180
1,570
149
3,250
260
Chlorides
12,000
810
14,360
1,370
10,600
860
Sulfates
420
40
4,500
360
Suifides
160
15
990
Chromium
0.25*
0.02*
4.1
0.33
The permit application was denied by the Agency on May 12,
1987.
Subsequently,
IBP presented additional technical
evidence,
and an Agency permit authorizing construction
of the tannery was
issued on July
1,
1987.
It
is anticipated
that the tannery will
become operational on or about June
1,
1988.
Alternative Compliance Measures
IBP is not seeking
a plan
of study variance, but
is
committed
to achieving compliance by the end of
the variance
period by employing conventional
treatment methods.
The Agency
and IBP have,
through negotiations, agreed that IBP will examine
the following conventional treatment methods:
(1) clarification,
*
Assumed Values
86—315
—4—
(2)
filtration,
and
(3)
a combination of clarification and
filtration.
The Agency notes that IBP will
need time
to evaluate
the effectiveness and the cost of those conventional treatment
methods.
The Agency anticipates
that the employment of
conventional
treatment methods will allow IBP’s effluent
to
achieve compliance;
however,
if that
is not the case,
IBP may
seek further
relief from the Board.
Hardship
The Agency stated
in its Recommendation that denial
of
a
variance would create hardship to IBP due
to
its potential
exposure
to enforcement.
The Agency noted also that
a
concomitant area
of hardship would involve
the financial and
technical difficulties inherent
in achieving
immediate
compliance.
The Agency stated that, while
the hardship cannot be
precisely quantified,
IBP has established hardship “sufficient
to
allow the granting of a variance.”
The Board accepts the
Agency’s determination and agrees that IBP has established
hardship.
Environmental Impact
IBP alleges
that
the environmental impact of granting
of
this variance would
be minimal.
This assertion
is based
upon a
review of total
suspended solids levels
in the Rock River
downstream of the discharge, and a calculation as
to
the impact
of IBP’s discharge.
The Agency generally concurred with
IBP’s
assertion because
of the relatively small size of the discharge
in relation
to flows
in the receiving stream.
The Agency stated
that the discharge would not have
a significant impact on total
suspended solids
levels
in the river.
Further,
the Agency stated
that the hardship to IBP outweighs any adverse environmental
impact.
Federal Law
Both
IBP and the Agency reviewed plant data
in order
to
determine the discharge
limit
for TSS allowable pursuant to
40
CFR 432.
The Agency stated also that the additional TSS loading
from the tannery will affect the allowable federal
limit.
The
consensus of the parties was
that the allowable limits are as
follows:
TSS Concentration (mg/l)
30—day average
daily maximum
Prior to start—up
60
119.9
of tannery
Following start—up
66.8
136.1
86—3 16
—5—
The Agency recomended that the discharge be limited to these levels during
the period of the variance.
The Board notes
that because
IBP and the Agency are
in
agreement as
to the facts and recommended remedy,
there are no
contested issues.
Therefore,
the Board finds that
the evidence
supports the granting
of the recommended variance to
IBP.
Absent
the variance,
IBP would suffer arbitrary and unreasonable
hardships.
In summary, the variance
is granted
until December
31,
1988
subject to the conditions specified
in the Agency Recommendation
and agreed
to by IBP.
The Board notes that the Agency
Recommendation recommends variance only from 35
Ill. Adm.
Code
304.120(a).
IBP’s petition requested variance from 35
Ill. Adm.
Code 304.120(b)
and NPDES Permit No. 1L0003913.
The Board
assumes
that Section 304.120(b)
is the proper subsection because
the record
indicates that IBP’s untreated waste load exceeds
10,000 population equivalents.
The Board grants the variance
from the NPDES Permit as well.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings
of
fact and
conclusions
of law in this matter.
ORDER
The Petitioner, IBP,
Inc.,
is hereby granted variance from
35 Ill.
Adm.
Code 304.120(b)
(as
it pertains
to total suspended
solids)
and from
the conditions
of NPDES Permit No. IL00039l3
relating to total suspended
solids until December
31,
1988,
subject
to the following conditions:
A.
Discharge of TSS shall not exceed the following levels:
‘ISS Concentration (mg/l)
30—day average
daily maximum
Prior to start—up
60
119.9
of tannery
Following start—up
66.8
136.1
B.
Petitioner shall up—grade its Waste Water Treatment Plant in
accordance with the following schedule:
Item
Completion Date
Sukrnit permit application,
5/1/88
plans and operations to
IEPA/DWPC/Permits
Obtain permit
8/1/88
86—317
—6—
Co~nenceconstruction
8/15/88
Complete construction
12/31/88
C.
Petitioner shall make all reasonable efforts
to
complete up—grading
in accordance with the schedule set
forth
in paragraph
b,
above.
However,
if Petitioner
is
unable
to complete up—grading due
to factors beyond
its
control
(such
as inclement weather
or delays
in
obtaining manufactured equipment),
it may seek
to
obtain an extension of the completion schedule by
filing
for
an extension of
this variance.
10.
Within forty five
(45)
days of the Board’s Order,
the
Petitioner
shall execute
a certificate of acceptance
and agreement,
which
shall
be sent
to Mr. James Frost
of the Agency at the following address:
Mr. James Frost
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Water Pollution Control
2200 Churchill Road
P.O.
Box 19276
Springfield,
IL 62794—9276
This variance shall
be void
if Petitioner fails to
execute and forward
the certificate within the forty—
five day period.
The forty—five day period shall
be
held
in abeyance during any period that this matter
is
being appealed.
The form of said Certification shall
be as
follows:
CERTIFICATION
I,
(We),
IBP,
Inc.,
having read the Order
of the Illinois
Pollution Control Board,
in PCB 86—174, dated February 25,
1988,
understand and accept the said Order,
realizing that such
acceptance renders all terms and conditions thereto binding and
enforceable.
Petitioner
By:
Authorized Agent
Title
Date
86—318
Section
41 of the Environmental Protection Act,
Ill.
Rev.
Stat.
1985 ch.
111 1/2 par.
1041, provides for appeal
of final
Orders of the Board within
35 days.
the Rules
of
the Supreme
Court of Illinois establish filing requirements.
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
I,
Dorothy M.
Gunn,
Clerk
of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certif
that
the above Opinion and Order was
adopted
on the
_______________
day of
_____________,
1988 by
a vote
~
Illinois Pollution Control
Board
86—3 19