ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
August 21,
1980
KRAFT,
INC.,
)
Petitioner,
)
v.
)
PCB 80—42
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
MR.
W. GERALD THURSBY AND MS. JOHNNINE
BROWN
HAZARD,
ROOKS, PITTS,
FULLAGAR
AND
POUST, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER.
MR. STANLEY
S. PARSONS
AND
MS. MARY DRAKE, ATTORNEYS AT LAW,
APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT.
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF
THE
BOARD
(by D.
Satchell):
This matter comes before the Board upon
a petition for vari-
ance filed March
5, 1980 by Kraft,
Inc.
(Kraft).
The petition
requests a variance from Rules 201, 301 and 501 of Chapter
9:
Special Waste Hauling Regulations
(Rules)
as these rules pertain
to disposal of waste food in drums and sewage pretreatment sludge
from Kraft’s Champaign Plant.
On May 9,
1980 the Environmental
Protection Agency
(Agency)
recommended that the variance be denied.
On June
2, 1980
a hearing was held in Champaign.
No members of
the public attended and the Board has received no public comment.
Kraft’s
Champaign Plant is situated in Champaign, Champaign
County.
Major products include oil, salad dressings, mayonnaise,
pasta and processed cheese products
(R.
7).
The plant has an
output of more than 650 million pounds per year of food products.
It employs more than 2000 persons with an annual payroll in excess
of $35 million
(Pet.
2).
Process wastewater from the plant is subjected to pretreatment
prior to discharge to sewers tributary to the Northeast Plant of
the Urbana-Champaign Sanitary District
(District).
A surge tank
provides flow equalization.
Grease is then removed for sale as
soap stock.
The wastewater then enters an aeration basin prior to
mixture with untreated sanitary wastewater followed by discharge
to the District’s sewers.
Sludge from the aeration basin is dis-
charged to an aerobic di~estionunit.
After digestion the sludge
is hauled by tanker truck to three sludge lagoons ape-rated by the
District
(R. 10).
The tankers hold 5000 gallons.
There
is an
average of three loads per day or 700 to 800 loads per year
(R.
11).
—2—
These lagoons were constructed and are operated by the District On
its property under contract with Kraft
(R,
12; Ex.
1).
After fur-
ther treatment, the sludge is applied to land along with other
sludge produced by the District
(R. 21),
The other wastestream involved in this proceeding is described
as
“food waste.”
This
consists of discarded material which is
captured as part of
the
cleanup operation of equipment and pipe-
lines.
Sometimes it contains broken glass from jam—ups on the line
(R.
21).
This material is placed into fifty-five gallon cardboard
or steel
drums
(R.
23).
It is hauled by an independent hauler to
the multi-county Landfill in Villa Grove
(R.
24,
36).
There is
one load per day consisting of about thirty barrels
(R.
23).
In re~uestinga variance Kraft specifically states that it
does not admit that its waste is special waste under Chapter
9
(Pet.
4,
7).
Celotex
Corp.
v.
PC3,
65
Ill,
App.
3d 776
(4th
Dist.
1978).
Kraft requests in the alternative to a variance a
declaration that Chapter
9
is inapplicable to its waste streams.
“Special waste” includes “hazardous waste,”
“industrial
process waste” and “pollution control waste”
(Rule
103).
Waste—
water treatment plant sludge is specifically included in the de-
finition of “pollution control waste.”
Kraft contends, however,
that its sludge
is produced by a pretreatment plant as defined by
Rule
104 of Chapter
3:
Water Pollution
(R. 16).
There is no
specific incorporation of Chapter
3 definitions into Chapter
9.
Kraft has offered no explanation of why pretreatment sludges as a
class should he treated differently from other treatment plant
sludges for purposes of Chapter
9.
The Board holds
that,
as used
in Chapter
9,
the term “wastewater treatment plant sludges” in-
cludes sludges produced by pretreatment plants.
The
Agency
contends
that
the
food
waste
is
also
“special
waste”
since
it
is
“industrial
process
waste.”
“INDUSTRIAL
PROCESS
WASTE”
means
any
liquid,
solid,
semi—solid or gaseous
waste
generated
as
a
direct
or
indirect result of the manufacture
of a product or the
performance of a service which pose
a present or poten-
tial threat
to human
health or
to
the environment or
with inherent properties
which
make
the
disposal of
such waste in a landfill difficult to manage by normal
means.
(Rule
103)
The
food waste
is
produced
as
a result of the manufacture of
Kraft’s products.
It has a consistency like jelly or
gelatin and
is contained in barrels
(R.
23,
34).
The Agency regards it as
a
—3—
liquid waste
(R.
46, 54).
Liquid wastes have inherent properties
which make their disposal in a landfill difficult to manage by
normal means
(R.
25, 76).
If the liquid to solid ratio is too
high there will be difficulties with moving equipment at the fill
face and leachate problems may result
CR.
50, 58).
It is more
difficult to move barrels around the landfill than ordinary house-
hold waste
(R.
38).
Barrels must always be handled with care Un—
less the operator knows that the contents are not hazardous
(R. 70).
The Board finds that both the sludge and food waste are
special wastes.
Kraft has offered evidence that in i?s particular
case the wastes are being handled without damage to the environ-
ment.
However, in adopting Chapter 9 the Board intended to set up
a permit and manifest system to ensure that special wastes were
properly handled
(Rule 101).
It was not the Board’s intent that
Chapter
9 extend only to special wastes whose handling is improper.
Rule 201 requires that any person hauling special waste ob-
tain a permit.
The food waste
is hauled by an independent hauler
CR.
26; Pet.
6).
This person is not identified and is not a party
to this action.
Since Kraft has demonstrated no need for it, the
variance from Rule 201 for the food waste will be denied.
Rule 501 provides for special waste manifests.
Rule 301
proscribes delivery of the waste without a manifest.
Rule 302
proscribes acceptance of the waste without a manifest.
Neither
the District nor Waste Concepts, Incorporated, owner of the Villa
Grove Landfill, has been made a party to this action.
The actions
contemplated by Kraft under the requested variance could cause
these persons to violate Rule 302.
They would have to be joined
or obtain variances on their
own
for the Board to grant a meaning-
ful variance to Kraft.
Although this alone necessitates denial of
the variance, the Board will further discuss the merits.
Kraft has requested a complete variance from the Chapter
9
requirement.
Its cost analysis, however, centers on the costs
associated with the requirements of separate manifests for each
load
(R.
17,
25).
This would not be sufficient to justify an
award of a variance from the permit requirement of Rule 201 for
the sludge Kraft itself hauls, or complete exemption from the
reporting requirements of Rule 501.
Furthermore, Kraft has offer-
ed no plan for eventual compliance with Chapter
9
Procedural
Rule
401(a) (6)
and Section 36(b)
of the Environmental Protection Act
(Act)
1.
Kraft is currently complying with Chapter
9 with respect to
the food waste, but not
th~e sludge
(R.
29).
Kraft estimates the
annual cost of compliance at $8500 for the sludge and $8800 for
—4—
the food waste
(R.
17,
26).
In adopting Chapter
9 the Board
recognized that some expenses would
be imposed on those affected.
Kraft has not demonstrated that these expenses would impose
an
arbitrary or unreasonable hardship upon
it.
The variance is
denied.
This Opinion constitutes
the
Board~sfindings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter,
ORDER
Kraft,
Inc.
is denied a variance from Rules 201, 301 and 501
of Chapter
9:
Special Waste Hauling Regulations for sludge from
the sewage pretreatment plant and food waste at
its
Champaign
Plant.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I,
Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board,
hereby certify
that the above Opinion and Order
werE~adoptedon the
~
day of
1980 by a vote
Illinois Pollution
Board
