ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

April 27

,

1978

FOX VALLEY GREASE COMPANY,

Petitioner,

v.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ) PCB 77-179

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Dumelle):

This case comes before the Board as an appeal of a permit

denial. On February 8, 1977 the Agency received an application

from Petitioner for a permit to install an air flotation unit

and a permit to operate existing wastewater treatment facilities

included in the air flotation unit. The permit application

pertained to Petitioner’s grease rendering plant located near

Huntley, Illinois in McHenry County. The application was

amended to correct errors in calculations in a letter dated

February 28, 1977. On March 1, 1977 the Agency responded

that the application was incomplete and that additional data

would have to be submitted before the requested permits could

be issued. In a letter dated March 21, 1977 Petitioner

commented on the Agency’s findings in its letter dated March

1, 1977. In a letter dated June 7, 1977 the Agency denied

the request for the subject permits. On June 30, 1977 Petitioner

filed an appeal of the

Agency’s

decision. On July 15, 1977

The Agency filed the record of the permit application. The

record was supplemented on July 27, 1977. A hearing was

held on January 10, 1978 at the McHenry County Courthouse

th Woodstock, Tilinois.

At the outset

it

snould be clearly noted

th~tt the

sole

issue in this cuse is whether or not the record submitted

by the Agency in this case supports its decision. At the

request of Petitioner, the Agency filed a series of documents

on December 21, 1977 relating to prior applications submitted

by Petitioner. At no time did the Agency state that these

documents supported its decision. Consequently, the record

in this case shall be viewed as the July 15 and July 27, 1977

submissions exclusively.

The Agency felt that the technical specifications for

the air flotation unit were lacking in detail. Rule 957

of Chapter 3: Water Pollution specifies the amount of detail

which is required. Petitioner felt that it had provided

30-87

---

—2—

all the necessary information in prior permit applications

and that it should not be required to do so again.

Petitioner described the nature and volume of the wastewater

to be treated by referring to levels of BOD, suspended

solids and oil and grease. The Agency stated that

there should be an analysis of ammonia, total dissolved solids,

iron, phosphorus, fecal coliform and pH since these contaminants

were probably present in Petitioner’s waste stream. The Board

finds that the Agency’s concerns in this regard are well

founded. ‘~he Board has promulgated standards which govern

the maximum permissible levels of these contaminants in

ground water. Since Petitioner’s proposed wastewater

treatment system contemplates subsurface disposal of its

treated effluent, there must be adequate assurance that the

Board’s standards for ground water protection will not be

violated.

Petitioner stated that it had no information which

would indicate that any of the ground water in the vicinity

of its site was being contaminated. Rule 962 of Chapter 3

states that the Agency shall not issue any permit unless

compliance with the Act and the Board’s standards is demon-

strated. Consequently, the burden is on the Petitioner to

supply this information. The Agency’s position that monitoring

wells be installed around the perimeter of Petitioner’s

wastewater lagoon is justified and it was reasonable on

the Agency’s part to deny the requested permits since it

lacked this information.

In its application Petitioner submitted estimates of the

strength of its wastewater. The Agency stated that the estimates

were inadequately documented and that actual analyses should

have been submitted instead. Petitioner felt that it was

being placed in an untenable situation because certain in—plant

changes had occurred since its wastewater was subjected to

treatability studies and that therefore it did not have the

data available to it to satisfy the Agency’s request. Once

again, the Board must reiterate its position that the burden

to demonstrate compliance rests with the Petitioner. In cases

such as this where the Agency has good cause to doubt the

validity or basis of certain estimates there is no substitute for

actual data which could be supplied by the manufacturer of

the equipment which Petitioner proposes to install.

Petitioner stated that it felt that soil borings taken

in the vicinity of the site indicated that enough of the

area contained suitable percolation test results. Petitioner

felt that this was an adequate demonstration that no ground

30-88

---

—3—

water pollution could result. The Agency challenged this

conclusion on the basis that the dethrminations of suitability

were based on the assumption that only domestic sewage would

be subject to seepage. The answer to this conflict lies in

the collection of data from properly located monitoring wells.

This was the same solution proposed by the Illinois State

Geological Survey in its earlier report on the suitability

of soils in this area.

Since these inadequacies in Petitioner’s application

support the Agency’s decision to deny the subject permits,

the Board will not address the Agency’s claims that the

plans and specifications for Petitioner’s proposed wastewater

treatment system do not conform with all pertinent technical

criteria documents. The Board is hopeful that once the proper

data has been collected in accordance with this Opinion,

the Petitioner and the Agency can agree on the proper form

any future permit applications should assume.

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact

and conclusions of law in this matter.

Mt Young abstains.

ORDER

It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that the

Agency’s action dated June 7, 1977 in denying Petitioner’s

application for permits to construct an air flotation unit

and to operate its existing wastewater treatment facilities

be affirmed.

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, hereby certify the abov Opinion and Order

were adopted on the

~

day of

____________,

1978 by

a vote of

4.~

Christan L. Mot~t~,Clerk

Illinois Pollut±&~Control Board

39—89