ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
June
9,
1971
ALLIED MILLS,
INC.
PCB #7l~16
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Frederick
C.
Prillaman,
for the Environmental Protection Agency
Mr. Lawrence
G. Weppler, Chicago,
for Allied Mills,
Inc.
Opinion and Order of the Board
(by Samuel
R. Aldrich):
This opinion is
in support of an order approved by the Board
on May
26,
1971,
at the regular Board meeting at Charleston.
A
copy of the order is attached to this opinion.
Allied Mills,
Inc.
(uAlliedu) operates
a soybean processing
plant in Taylorville,
Illinois.
Whole soybeans
are extracted
so
as
to yield soybean oil
and soybean meal,
the
two basic products
of
the operation
(R.13).
Process wastes
are treated first in an
anaerobic lagoon,
then
in an aerobic lagoon.
The effluent from the
lagoon contains suspended solids,
organic BOD and some plant nutrients
(R.34).
The effluent is discharged into
an unnamed tributary
to the
South Fork of
the Sangamon River.
Rules
and Regulations SWB-l4
require that wastes receive advanced treatment prior to release into
such streams,
Municipalities
are to comply with the regulations by
July 1972.
Industries are required to meet the effluent criteria
of SWB~l4in accordance with
a timetable established by the Pollution
Control Board subsequent
to inspection of
the facilities,
Allied
Mills,
Inc.
did not have
a timetable for compliance with
a BOD
of
4 mg/l and suspended solids of
5 mg/l established by the Board.
Allied~sexisting lagoon system was installed in 1964 and was
designed to produce an effluent
not exceeding 20 mg/I BOD and
25 mg/I suspended solids.
Dr. Jeff Dietz,
consultant
to Allied
on environmental problems,
testified at the hearing that the~e
figures were
~..
.satisfactory
to the Regional Office of the
Sanitary Water Boardu and were
the accepted standards at that
time
(R.l03),
The Agency did not dispute this contention.
Results of
analyses
of the effluent made by the Department of Public Health
in 1966 indicated that satisfactory treatment was being accomplished
(Allied Exhibit
2).
I
—
657
From 1966
to 1968 Allied expanded
its production,
apparently
without enlarging its treatment facilities.
There
is
no doubt that
this expanded production contributed to A1lied~s recent pollution
problems.
A sample of the lagoon effluent taken by the
Sanitary
Water Board on November
13,
1968, exerted
a
HOD of
500 mg/I (EPA Exhibit 1).
A witness
for the Agency testified that effluent samples dating back
to 1966 showed an average HOD
of
274
mg/i
(R.135,
136).
7\llied’s own
samples taken in late 1970 exerted
considerably
less HOD
(Allied
Ex.
D)
.
These samples were described by the Agency as unrepresen-
tative.
In any
event
the effluent from the lagoon system has evidently
exceeded design criteria for
a considerable period
of
time.
A packet of letters from school children
(EPA Ex.
3)
objected
to granting of the variance.
A farmer claimed that Allied’s wastes
exerted harmful effects on his cattle five miles downstream,
The
consulting
engineer,
after
an
on-site
study,
concluded
that
part
of
the
over1o~ding
of
the
lagoon
system
was
due
to
1300
of
the
storm
runoff
water
from
the
large
paved
area
around
the
plant.
The
source
of
HOT)
material
was
identified
as
dust
emissions
from
soybean
processing.
Allied
filed
a
variance
petiton
on
February
2,
1971,
askino
for
a
period
of
one
year
plus
additional
time
as
necessary
to
cumulate
the
construction
of
Imroved
treatment
facilities
so
as
to
comply
with
S~’7B—l4 effluent
criteria
of
4
mg/i
HOD and
5
mg,/i
suspended
solids.
Allied
suecifically
asked
for
t:Lme
to
study
the
problem
of
the
storm
runoff
load
into
its
lagoon
system
and
for
time
to
comalete
acoulsi—
Lion
of
land
to
receive
the
storm
runoff
water,
The
Company
has
recently
installed
equipment
to
reduce
dust
emissioni
and
thereby
reduce
the
POD
of
the
storrnwater.
Allied
had
planned
to
ungrade
the
lagoon
system
so
as
to
comoly
with
P1513—14,
Their
petition
stated
that
the
p±anneo. improvements
conIc
reasonaoly
he
expected
to
oring
their
effluent
into
comoliance.
As
a
result
of
further
investiga-
tions
by
the
Company,
it
was
decided
that
stormwater
runoff
could
be
treated
more
efficiently
and
economically
through
land
disposal
in
a
tyoe
of
irrigation
system.
Accordingly,
Allied
filed
an
amended
petition
on
April
20,
1971.
The
Company
asked for
a
variance
until
October
1,
1971,
and additional
time as
necessary to complete its
proposed
changeover
to
land
disposal
of
waste
water.
The
Company
intends
to
install
a
disposal
system
such
that
by
September
1,
1971,
all
stormwater
wastes
can
be
diverted
from
the
lagoon
system
to
the
land
area
(R.43).
Process
waste
water
would
he
temporarily diverted
to the irrigation field by
Oc~oher 1,
1971.
At that time Allied
will attempt to recondition the lagoon system
by
removing solids
if
present
especially
from
the
aerobic
lagoon.
Process
water
will
then
he
returned
to
the
lagoons.
A
sampling
program
will
then
be
initiated
to
determine
the
possible
need
for
further
treatment
in
order
to
meet
the
effluent
requirements
of
SWB-14.
A
witness
for
the
Agency
testified
that
he
believed
the
Company’s
proposed
land
disposal
system
would
work
satisfactorily
(R,127).
Whether
the
system
will
work
or
not
is
not
at
issue
here,
That
is
for
the
Agency
to
decide
under
its
permit
procedures.
I
—
658
Allied testified that when the land
disposal system is
in opera-
tion,
the Company believes
it will
be in full compliance with
the
rules and regulations of
the Board
(R.43).
This
is yet to be demon-
strated because SWB-l4 will require
a BOD of
4 mg/l
and ~uspended
solids of
5 mg/l whereas Allied initially designed the lagoon system
for
20 and 25 mg/l respectively.
Allied does not present quantitative
data on
the volume or composition of process waste water entering the
lagoon system.
Such data were not available at the
time of the hearing.
Automatic
flow measurement and sampling devices were installed
in
March,
1971,
and
this equipment soon will supply useful information
for future planning.
The Company will need some time to study the
HOD and solids
in its lagoon effluent after
the stormwater
is diverted
and the lagoons are reconditioned.
Allied’s plans for disposal of its wastes on land is contingent
upon the acquisition end rezoning of 33 acres of land to the north and
east of the present property on which the Company obtained
an option
April
27,
1971.
Counsel for Allied indicated that the land presently
zoned as “agricultural’
will be requested
to be reclassified
as
“industrial”
(R.7l,
73).
He anticipated that the property would be
rezoned and the purchase completed by June
30,
1971
(R.74).
It is our
hope that this opinion and order will expedite the rezoning of the
property to hasten the
day when
land disposal becomes
a reality and
the excessive pollution load of the receiving stream will cease.
An important
issue raised in this case
is the
legal responsi-
bility of industry with regard
to meeting
the
requirements
of
SWB-14.
Both the Agency and
the Company assumed that the deadline
for comp—
liance of July,
1972,
applies
to industries
as well as to municipali-
ties.
Indeed,
the Agency bases
its recommendation that the variance
he denied on
the fact that the effluent
from
the lagoons greatly
exceeds the specifications of SWB—14 for
HOD and
suspended solids.
However,
we
interpret Rule 1,08,
paragraph
15,
of Rules and Regulations
SWB-l4
to mean that industries
are not required to meet the specified
effluent standards until
the Board establishes
a timetable for com-
pliance.
To date neither the Pollution Control Board nor
its
predecessor,
the Sanitary Water
Board,
has established such
a timetable.
We find,
therefore,
as
in Borden Chemical Company
v.
EPA, PCB
71-23,
that Allied
is not now in violation of SWB-l4.
We anticipate that the
Agency will soon develop timetables
for all industries
as required
under Section 1.08 of SWB-14.
We will grant the Company’s request for
a variance,
allowing it
sufficient
time to complete its planned program for improved waste
treatment.
Until October
1,
1971,
the effluent may exceed 20 mg,’l
HOD and 25 mg/i suspended solids.
In spite
of that possibility we
feel that the excess discharges are not sufficiently objectionable
to justify closing the plant thus causing 125 persons to
lose employ-
ment and depriving the company of income.
Furthermore
the period of
time
is short.
—
659
The record indicates
that
the Company can re~sonab1ybe expected
to meet
the July,
1972, deadline as required of municipalities.
Allied
expects
to have
its land disposal system in operation by October
1,
1971,
We
believe that nine months will be sufficient for Allied to
complete whatever additional
steps are necessary to achieve full
compliance with SWB-14.
We will therefore require Allied to meet
the
standards
for advanced treatment specified
in SWB-14 by July
1,
1972.
To ensure compliance, we will also require the Company to post
a
performance bond.
I, Regin~a
E.
Ryan, Clerk of the Pollution Control Board, certifies
that
t~e~
above
Opinion
was
adopted
by
the
Board
on
the
~
day
of
/‘i~.’~.
,
1971.
/
/
//
~
_-(_
~
-f
/
—
650