ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

August

5,

1976

QUINCY SOYBEAN COMPANY,

)

Petitioner,

v.

)

 PCB 76—113

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

 (by Mr. Dumelle):

This matter comes before the Board on a Petition for Variance

by Quincy Soybean Company

 (Quincy)

 from Rule 203(1)

 of the Board’s

Water Regulations to allow Quincy to discharge its cooling water

effluent into Curtis Creek

 (Creek) beginning January

1,

 1977 until

the City of Quincy makes available a

 36” outfall sewer to the

Mississippi River.

 The original Petition was filed on April

26,

1976.

 On June

1,

 1976 the Agency filed its Recommendation on

this matter requesting the denial of the Petition until:

1)

Quincy demonstrates that its discharge will not have

 a detri-

mental effect on the Creek,

2)

 Quincy presents

 a schedule

for removal of all process wastes from its cooling water discharge,

and 3)

 Quincy agrees to remove all process wastes from its cooling

water discharge by April

1,

 1977.

 On July 21,

 1976 Quincy

amended its Petition for Variance with biological surveys of both

the Creek and the drainage ditch Quincy presently uses,

 a summary

of the drainage ditch temperature data,

 and several other documents.

On August

5,

 1975 the Agency filed an Amended Recommendation.

Quincy Soybean Company processes soybeans to produce soybean

oil and soybean meal.

 Quincy presently discharges

 5.5 MGD cooling

water into the Mississippi River via drainage ditch and pumping

plant of the South Quincy Drainage District.

 The current contract

authorizing this discharge expires on December

31,

 1976 and will

not be renewed due to inadequate pumping capacity.

 Quincy therefore

must find an alternative treatment or discharge method.

The City of Quincy plans to abandon a 36” outfall sewer

from its sewage. treatment plant

 to the Mississippi River some

time in 1978.

 At that time it is anticipated that Quincy will

lease the sewer from the City.

 Thus, Quincy seeks an interim

—

243

—2—

solution.

 Quincy proposes to construct a pipeline which will

extend beyond the proposed discharge point at Curtis Creek and

connect into the City’s

 36” sewer.

 Thus, when the City’s sewer

becomes available Quincy would stop the discharge into the Creek

and open the sewer connection.

The Board must determine whether compliance with the thermal

discharge standard of Water Rule 203(i) would place an arbitrary

or unreasonable hardship upon Quincy.

 Quincy proposes a two gear

discharge of 5.5 MGD of water

 at an average temperature of

80

 into

the final

 1,500 feet of Curtis Creek prior to its confluence with

the Mississippi River.

 Quincy states that the effluent conforms

to all applicable standards except for the thermal limits to

Curtis Creek.

 The first issue,

 then,

 is the extent of environmental

damage which could be caused by the proposed discharge.

 Quincy

has submitted biological surveys of both Curtis Creek and the

presently used drainage ditch.

 The Curtis Creek survey describes

septic odors, depressed oxygen concentrations,

 algal growth and

silt layers which cover the bottom,

 and the absence of intolerant

macroinvertebrates.

 The proposed discharge point is downstream

from the South Park storm and sanitary discharge point,

 industrial

discharges,

 and the bypass from the City’s treatment plant.

On

either side of Quincy Soybean’s proposed discharge point the

survey states that the

“.

.bottom deposits were comprised of

silts and organic materials resembling partially digested

domestic sewage.”

 After reviewing the survey data the Board

finds that there is

 a rather low potential for adverse environ-

mental impact.

 The main concern of the Board is the possibility

of a fish kill which could result from a sudden cessation of

the heated discharge during the winter.

Quincy’s survey of the South Drainage Ditch,

 into which

it currently discharges

 its effluent, indicates the presence

of large numbers of fish and a large diverse population of

macroinvertebrates.

 The report concludes that the ditch

is

a

more balanced aquatic ecosystem than

 is the lower portion of

the

Creek.

 This indicates that Quincy’s two year discharge will not

have a long-term adverse effect on Curtis Creek.

 The possibility

of a fish kill exists in either the Creek or the ditch during

the winter.

 It will be Quincy’s duty to operate its plants

in

such a manner

 so as

 to minimize this risk.

Quincy has submitted, by affidavit, an assessment of alterna-

tives for cooling the effluent or re-routing by pipeline.

As

for cooling methods

 it is clear that design and construction lag

times would render

 these alternatives useless.

 By the time

—

244

—3—

construction could be completed the device would probably no

longer be needed.

 Of course, were there an indication of self—

imposed delay and bad faith on Quincy’s part such factors would present

no excuse.

 However,

 in this case no such allegation has arisen.

The affidavit also considers the construction of

 a pipeline

to the Mississippi.

 While the cost would not be prohibitive,

 this

project would require the removal of trees from 30,000 square

feet of river flood plain.

 There is also question as

 to whether

such pipeline could be completed prior to January

1,

 1977.

 There-

fore, given the absence of long—term adverse environmental effects

the Board finds that compliance with Water Rule 203(i) would place

an arbitrary or unreasonable burden upon Quincy.

 However, the

Board will structure its order to reflect the uncertainty of

the dates of termination of use of the ditch and the availability

of the outfall sewer.

The Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and

conclusions of law.

ORDER

Petitioner Quincy Soybean Company

 is hereby granted variance

from Rule 203(i)

 of the Board’s Water Pollution Regulations for

the discharge of cooling water into Curtis Creek at an average

rate of 5.5 MGD and an average temperature of 800.

 The discharge

shall be located not more than approximately 1500 feet upstream

of the Creek confluence with the Mississippi.

 This variance

shall commence at the time Quincy Soybean Company notifies the

Agency that the South Quincy Drainage District has refused

all reasonable offers

 to extend and/or modify the existing

contract, but not sooner than December

31,

 1976.

 The variance

shall terminate upon the occurrence of any of the following:

1.

 Extension or modification of Quincy’s contract to

to discharge to the South Quincy Drainage District;

or

2.

 Failure of the City of Quincy to agree to lease its

36” outfall sewer

 to Quincy Soybean; or

23

—

245

—4—

3.

 Availability of the 36” outfall sewer for Quincy

Soybean’s discharge.

However, in no case shall this variance extend beyond

December 31,

 1978.

 This variance does not relieve Petitioner

from liability associated with any killing of fish or other

aquatic life caused by its discharges.

This variance is granted subject to the following conditions:

(a)

 Petitioner shall investigate and report to the

Agency by December

31,

 1976 on the feasibility of

phasing its plant shut downs to avoid fish kills

attributable to thermal shock.

(b)

 Petitioner shall complete its proposed separation

of process waste, cooling water, and floor drains

by April

 15, 1977.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

Bo

r

 hereby certify the above Opinion and 0 der were adopted on the

~_day

 of August, 1976 by a vote of _______________________

Christan L. Mo fett,

C

Illinois Pollution Cont

 oard

—

246