ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
August 2, 1971
STANDARD BRANDS, INC.
v.
)
PCB 71—98
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
Mr. Paul Johnson, Standard Brands, Inc.
on behalf of the petitioner
Mr. Delbert D, Haschemeyer
on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency
OPINION OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Dumelle)
Standard Brands, Inc. (Standard) filed a petition for variance
on May 5, 1971 seeking to be exempt from the operation of certain
water pollution regulations relating to the discharge of material
containing excessive amounts of biological oxygen demand (BOD) and
other contaminants. Specifically the petitioner asked for an exten-
sion of the November 1972 deadline by which the treatment facilities
at its plant in Pekin, Illinois were due to be operat~ngand further
asked that the prohibitions of Section 12(a) of the Environmental
Protection Act (Act) and Sections 103(c), 103(d), 1.08 (10) and 1.08
(11) of the Illinois Sanitary Water Board Rules and Regulations
SWB-8 (SWB~8) and superceding regulations be inapplicable until the
proposed treatment facilities are completed. The Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA) countered Standard~’s petition with a recommenda-
tion filed on June 22, 1971. The EPA asked that the petition be
denied and, in the alternative, if the request for variance was granted
that the following conditions be made part of the grant~ (1) payment
of a money penalty, (2) immediate commencement of installation of
adequate treatment facilities, (3) posting of a performance bond,
(4) submittal of monthly progress reports, and (5) limitation of the
variance grant to one year.
We grant the requested variance for one year, until August 1,
1972, subject to conditions outlined in this opinion and specified in
the Board~s Order of this date.
Standard is a corporation engaged in food processing operations
on an international scale with plants in the U.S., Canada, Europe
and Latin America. Total worldwide sales in 1970 were approximately
2
175
$1,120,000,000 (EPA Ex.l). Standard~s
plant at Pekin produces
baker~syeast, malt and grain extracts, and other products used in
the baking industry. The company has five similar plants throughout
the United States in its Fleischmann Manufacturing Division (R.16,
18, 23) At Pekin the approximate annual consumption of raw materials
is 33,000 tons of molasses,
2—3,000 tons each of ammonia, corn, and
barley and 600 tons of malt sprouts (petition,
sec. II). The Pekin
complex is located in an unincorporated portion of Tazewell
County,
approximately 1/4 mile south of the Pekin city limits on the east
bank of the Illinois River. In the general
area of petitionerts
operations are a power
plant and The Quaker Oats and American Distil-
ling Company plants. Residences are located approximately 1/2 mile
to the southeast.
Standard~s aqueous waste can be divided into four categories,
(1) concentrated process waste, (2) dilute process waste,
(3) cooling
water and (4) sanitary waste. The plant~s concentrated wastes are
presently treated prior to discharge into the Illinois River by treat-
ment facilities installed in 1940 consisting of anaerobic digesters
designed to reduce the ROD content of the treated waste by 85. The
wastes are primarily carbohydrates and protein materials, residual
molasses wastes, in an average daily flow of 3,500,000 gallons, In
1969 Standard commenced a program to upgrade its treatment facilities.
The upgrading program was approved by the Illinois Sanitary Water
Board, one of this Board~spredecessors, in 1969 with a schedule
calling for completion of pilot plant studies by March of 1970, sub-
mission of plans and specifications by December, 1970 and completion
of construction by December of 1971. Standard is presently prepared
to comply with the Decefnber 1971 completion deadline., It has com-
pleted construction on the first phase of the 1969 program which
consisted of upgrading the ROD removal capacity of the existing digesters.
Thus, late in 1970 the company was proceeding with its plans to install
a lagoon treatment system when it became aware of proposed new regula-
tions which could not be met with the lagoon method of treatment (R,35).
Very soon after learning of the new regulations Standard decided to
install an evaporation treatment system similar to installations planned
or
under construction at Standard plants in Peekskill, New York, and
Sumner, Washington (R.25-26), The
scheduled completion date of the
evaporation treatment facilities is November 1972 at which time full
compliance with both the existing and currently proposed standard will
be achieved. The evaporation treatment system is estimated
to cost
$3,000,000 while $850,000 is the estimated cost for the lagoon system
(R,68—69). A useful by-product, molasses residium, is expected from
the evaporator system which the company can sell for a return of $60,000
to $90,000 annually (R.34). Beyond that annual operating costs of
the evaporation system are estimated to be at least $10,000 more than
the amount returned on product recovered (R.l34). The system will also
provide for water re—use and thus save well water for the company (R,38).
Mr. Leonard Lipton, Division Engineer for Standard testified that
the effluent from the anaerobic digesters presently in use had a BOD
concentration of about 1800 ppm (R.ll7-ll8). Curiously in its original
petition the company had reported an average BOD
level of 510 ppm
and suspended solids content of 600 ppm associated with a daily
effluent of 3,500,000 gallons (Petition, sec. III). Samples taken by
the EPA at the digester discharge line showed BOD concentrations of
1161 mg/i on May 26, 1971, approximately 3 weeks after the company
filed their petition, and 936 mg/i on June 15, 1971. Suspended solids
concentrations on the above two dates were 1110 mg/i and 610 mg/i
respectively (EPA Ex.6, Ex.7, R.i88 et seq.). Further with regard to
the effluent sample taken on May 26, Mr. Thomas Rinkasch, a sanitarian
with the EPA, testified as to its character stating that it was a
very dark brown color and h~d“somewhat of a hydrogen sulfide odor”
(R,188). Mr. Rinkasch described the above as a normal discharge
from the company’s operations (R.l90).
Mr. Calvin Badding, also a sanitarian with the EPA, visited the
plant on August 6, 1970 in response to a complaint and observed a
“reddish brown liquid” having a “very sweet, rotten” odor being dis-
charged from the plant into a ditch (R.l78). Mr. Badding returned
to the plant on August 7, August 10 and September 1, 1970 as well as
other times later in the year. The sample which Mr. Badding obtained
from the drain ditch on September 1, 1970 had a BOD concentration of
732 mg/i and suspended solids of 255 mg/i (EPA Ex,5, R.l80).
The dilute process wastes have also been found to be in viola-
tion of the existing and proposed regulations. The dilute wastes
consist of tank washings, floor washings and other such intermittent
non—process sources. In the proposed treatment program the sources
will be collected and treated separately from the concentrated wastes
treated by the evaporation system. Samples of the dilute waste
stream taken on June 15, 1971, before and after rectification of
some plant malfunction, show BOD concentrations of 232 and 144 mg/i
and suspended solids concentrations of 104 and 16 mg/i (EPA Ex.7b,7g,
R.l98)
.
The dilute process waste stream accounts for about 30 of
the BOD load with the bulk of the pollutionai load (70) being the
concentrated process waste (R.109).
The effluent standard in the present regulation is 30 mg/i for
BOD and 35 mg/i for suspended solids. The proposed standard limits
BOD to 20 mg/i and suspended solids to 25 mg/i. Surely, of greater
significance in this case is the fact that the proposed new standards
spell out the philosophy that dilution is not the soiutio~xto pollu-
tion.
DilutionRegardingof
dilutionthe
effluentthe fromproposeda wastestandardtreatmentprovides:~-plant,1
or from any individual waste source, is not accept~bie
as a method of treatment of wastes in order to meet the
standards set forth in this part. Rather, it shall be
the obligation of any person discharging contaminants
of any kind to the waters of the state to provide the
1 Revision of July 12, 1971 to Paragraph 1 of Proposed Effluent
Standards, R70-8
2— 177
the best degree of treatment of wastes consistent with
technological feasibility, economic reasonableness
and sound engineering judgment. In making determina-
tions
as to what kind of treatment is the “best degree
of treatment” within the meaning of this paragraph, any
person shall consider the following:
1) what degree of waste reduction can be achieved
by process change, improved housekeeping, and
recovery of individual waste components
for
reuse; and
2) whether individual process waste water streams
should be segregated or combined.
In any case, measurement of contaminant concentrations to
determine compliance with the effluent criteria shall be
made at the point immediately following the final treat-
ment process and before mixture with other waters, unless
another point is designated by the agency in any individual
permit, after consideration of the elements contained in
this paragraph.
The hardship in this case, compliance with the present approved
schedule for facilities with the likely result of inadequate facilities,
is a peculiar one which we have not had occasion to deal with in any
previous case. Proceeding with the present plan of improved biolo-
gical treatment will result in a system incapable of meeting the
proposed new standards. Changing horses at this point in the stream
will enable Standard to proceed with a system which will meet the
probable new standards. The most desirable course wo’uld appear to
be to allow the company to proceed with the superior method of treat-
ment but to ensure that it does so with the maximum feasible safe-
guards to abate pollution in the interim engineering and construction
period. Standard sought this variance to allow it to cease work on
a waste treatment system which will be obsolete the moment it is
completed and design and install a substantially more expensive treat~
ment process which will fully meet the more rigid proposed effiuent
standards. The company stated in its petition that “if (the variance
is not granted in substantially the form submitted and if the proposed
regulations are adopted, there appears to be no alternative other than
closing the operations at Pekin thereby eliminating approximately
230 positions with an annual payroll in excess of $2.2 million..”
(Petition, sec.VI). The company, however, modified this harsh con-
clusion at the hearing to the effect that the continuation of the
Pekin operation would have to be reevaluated should the requested
variance be denied (R.57-58)
Any person concerned about the total environment whether as
a member of a public service board or agency or as an interested
citizen cannot but but be impressed with the proposed evaporator
waste treatment system. The proposed methodology manifests a concern
for the total environment that too often is paid only lip service.
By removing the molasses solids with the evaporation system, the
company is not only eliminating a waste product it is creating a
useful, salable by-product. Additionally it is reclaiming and re-
using a quantity of water which it would normally remove from the
ground supply in the area. Last but certainly far from least it will
be eliminating an odor problem about which the company appears to
be relatively unconcerned. Presumably, the plant’s waste streams,
after
the
installation of the treatment systems and compliance with
this State’s effluent regulations, will not be odor-bearing.
To the extent
that
we are favorably impressed with
Standard’s
proposed
treatment system we
are
equally distressed with the history
of procrastination in this case. The Sanitary Water Board first
advised Standard that their waste treatment facilities were inadequate
way back in 1963 (R.l67). By any measure this company has taken far
too long to clean up its mess. Yet the record shows that these
years of delay have been officially sanctioned. It is our purpose
at this point to emphatically state that the protracted period of
delay in this case is
at an end.
We grant a variance in this case, limited in duration to one
year and subject to several conditions. The first limitation we
will place on this grant is a periodic reporting requirement. Pro-
gress reports are to be submitted quarterly. Periodic progress reports
are necessary as a means of checking compliance with program schedules,
The reports should detail progress to date and fully document and
explain significant deviations from the program as originally planned.
The first report shall cover the period from the present through
September 30, 1971. Standard should submit such reports to the
Environmental Protection Agency and the Board a reasonable time after
the expiration of the calendar quarter but in no case shall this period
extend beyond three weeks. We do not wish to be in the position, a
year from now, of discovering for the first time that there have
been further delays. For the same reason, we shall insist not only
that the company aim toward ultimate compliance by November 1972
but that it meet several interim deadlines, in accord with its
petition and proof at the hearing, in order to give us intermediate
checkpoints against which to measure progress. As regards the
installation of the evaporation system we shall require tha~the
engineering phase be complete by September 30, 1971, that bidding be
complete by April 30, 1972, and that major equipment delivery be
complete by June 30, 1972. As regards the dilute process waste we
shall require Standard to report to the Board and the Environmental
Protection Agency within 60 days complete schedule details of its
plans for dealing
with this 30 component of
the plant’s polluting
effluent.
2
179
Since this is a
case in which the hardship is temporary and
the reason for the variance is the need for time in which to install
treatment facilities, the Act
(~
36(a)) requires the posting of
security to assure that the company meets the dates it has set. We
have required security in comparable past cases (See Ozark—Mahoning
v. EPA, PCB 70-19), and statutory bond requirements are in fact
quite common and accepted in other fields. The purpose of the bond
requirement is to provide an additional incentive to the
variance
hoider to meet his deadlines, by imposing the threat
of forfeiture
if he does not. The amount must be high enough to make it more
unattractive to default than to spend the money for control facilities.
In this case we shall require the posting of a security in the amount
of $3,000,000; the approximate cost of the treatment facilities. One
third of the amount is to be forfeited in the event of default of
any one of the interim deadlines of September 30, 1971, April 30, 1972
and June 30, 1972.
As a Board we are uninformed of the particular temporary treat-
ment expedients which would be apt in this situation. Chemical
additives, process changes or the installation of devices such as
temporary oxygen aerators may be employed to alleviate the pollutional
conditions until the proposed system is completed. As a further
condition of this variance we will require Standard to make a report
within 60 days as to the feasibility of temporary measures which
can be used at the plant. Should the company either through its
own resources or its consultants find that one or more temporary
measures are feasible and reasonable its report should include a
schedule for using temporary facilities.
Apart from the need for treatment of the plant’s wastes because
of their magnitude we are cognizant of another pa~ticular pollution
burden put on the Illinois River, A recent study ~ of the LaGrange
pool, an area of the river downstream from Pekin, indicated the
existence of a severe oxygen sag in the poo1 manifested by a pattern
of observed values of dissolved oxygen of less than 2 mg/i. A graph
in the report depicts dissolved oxygen concentrations as a function
of time-of—travel in days starting at Peoria Lock and Dam,3~ From
an initial concentration of 4 mg/i the dissolved oxygen concentrations
plunge to less than 2 for the first day and remain depressed below
2 for the ensuing 5 days. It is obvious that the full impact of
Standard’s pollution load will be felt in the pool. The wat~er
quality standard for dissolved oxygen is at least 4 mg/i at all times
for this section of the Illinois River, By this reference we are not
attempting to directly correlate Standard~s discharges with the
condition nor are we meaning to implicate ROD as the major contributor
to the stressful condition. We are merely pointing to the fact that
the Illinois River in the LaGrange pool is greatly overloaded with
23 Butts, T,A., Schnepper, D.H,, and Evans, R.L,
Dissolved Oxygen Resources
and Waste Assimilative Capacity
of the LaGrange Pool, Illinois River, Illinois State Water
Survey Division (1970).
33 Id.p.3
2
—
180
pollutants and merits particular attention with regard to oxygen
consuming wastes.
The Act states that any variance granted under the Act is
limited
to one year and
then
may be extended only if satisfactory~
progress has been shown. We grant this variance to terminate on
August 1, 1972.. Should the petitioner need a further exemption from
prosecution beyond that date it should take the precaution of
filing a further petition some 90 days before the date of termina-
tion of the instant grant.
In granting this variance we must note that it is applicable
to waterborne contaminants only. The company has not asked for and
we are
not
granting a freedom from prosecution relating to complaints
about airborne odor. In a previous case involving the Pekin plant
we had occasion
to
discuss one of Standard’s odor problems (See
Standard Brands, Inc. v. EPA, PCB 71-3).
We
reiterate here a
suggestion
implicit in that previous case. If
it is feasible to
do
something to counteract the presence of odor in the
area
the
company should do something about
it without waiting for the incentive
of an enforcement action.
This opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusion of law.
2 —
181
ORDER
The Board having considered the petition, recommendation,
transcript and exhibits in this proceeding hereby grants a variance
to Standard Brands, Inc. subject to the following conditions:
1. Variance from the Environmental Protection Act and regulations
relating to effluent quality as regards BOD and suspended
solids is granted until August 1, 1972 during which time
Standard shall be proceeding with its program to abate water
pollution at its Pekin plant. An~ further variance shall be
petitioned for at least 90 days prior to August 1, 1972.
2. Standard shall meet the following schedule deadlines as
regards the installation of its pxoposed evaporator system:
(a) September 30, 1971
-
complete engineering
(b) April 30, 1972
-
complete bidding
(c) June 30, 1972
-
complete major equipment delivery
3. Standard shall subm~tto the Board and the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency within 60 days a complete schedule relating to
the abatement of the pollution caused by Standard’s dilute
process wastes.
4. Standard shall submit to the Environmental Protection Agency
and the Board quarterly reports on the progress of their
program to bring all plant effluents into compliance with the
regulations. The first report shall cover the period from the
present through September 30, 1971 with each subsequent report
covering the calendar quarter. The reports shall be submitted
in a reasonable time, not to exceed 3weeks, after the last
date reported on,
5. Standard shall post with the Environmental Protection Agency on
or before September 1, 1971, and in such form as the Agency
may find satisfactory, a bond or other adequate security in
the total amount of $3,000,000, which sum shall be forfeited pro
rata, one third of the total amount for each default, to the
State of Illinois in the event that the interim deadlines
of September 30, 1971, April 30, 1972, and June 30, 1972 are
defaulted.
6. Standard shall submit to the Board and the
Environmental
Protection Agency within 60 days a report on
the feasibility
of temporary treatment facilities or pollution abatement by
process changes
Or
other expedients.
If
some form of pollution
abatement is found to be feasible in the interim pending
completion of the proposed facilities Standard’s report shall
include a schedule for implementing such a temporary abatement
program.
2 —
182
7. Failure to adhere to any of the conditions of this variance
shall be grounds for revocation of the variance.
I, Regina E. Ryan, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the
Board adopted the above Opinion
and Order on this 2nd day of August, 1971.
(2~
Reg’n E. Ry
LXL
n, Cle
~i
Ill nois Pollution C~ntrol Board
2— 183