ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    November 15, 1989
    IBP, INC.,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB 88-98
    )
    (Permit Appea:L)
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    )
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD (by B. Forcade):
    This matter comes before the Board upon a motion to
    reconsider filed by the petitioner, IBP Inc. (“IBP”), on October
    18, 1989. IBP recuests that the Board reconsider its September
    13, 1989 Order in this matter which denied IBP’s permit appeal.
    The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (“Agency”) filed a
    response to IBP’s motion for reconsideration on November 1, 1989.
    In support of its motion for reconsideration, IEP states
    that “the record before the Board as submitted by the Agency
    adequately establishes that the conditions in the permit issued
    by the Agency are not necessary to accomplish the purposes of the
    Illinois Environmental Protection Act (“Act”) and therefore were
    imposed unreasonably.” However, in addition, IBP makes several
    arguments relating to the need for higher permit limitations
    because of certain design and operational aspects of its
    treatment plant. These latter arguments are inappropriate for a
    determination of whether certain total residual chlorine and
    ammonia nitrogen limitations are necessary in ISP’s permit to
    discharge.
    In regard to the permit condition establishing the residual
    chlorine concentration limit, ISP asserts that the Agency strayed
    from their usual waste load allocation determination process by
    placing the burden on ISP to “prove that which the existing
    regulations and Agency procedures presumed.” Therefore, ISP
    argues, that such a “departure from normal procedures is
    unreasonable and clearly not necessary to accomplish the purpose
    of the pollution control regulations.”
    In regard to the permit condition for an ammonia nitrogen
    load limit, ISP argues that “again the Agency ignored its normal
    waste load allocation procedures in favor of more restrictive
    levels unless an IEP
    conducted mixing
    zone study ~a
    submitted.” IBP asserts that the Agency’s action is “clearly
    unreasonable and unnecessary for protection of water quality and
    exposes ISP to considerable exposure due to the likelihood of
    non—compliance with this permit condition.”
    11)5—193
    —2—
    The Agency responds to IBP’s motion for reconsideration by
    requesting that the Board deny IBP’s motion. In arguing that
    ISP’s motion for reconsideration should be denied, the Agency
    states inter alia that ISP has raised no new evidence and no new
    issues in its motion, and that ISP has not made its burden of
    proof in demonstrating “a preponderance of the evidence that the
    limits set by the Agency are more stringent than is necessary to
    assure compliance.”
    The Board agrees with the Agency that ISP has not raised any
    new evidence or new issues in its motion. Nor has IBP asserted
    that the Board erred in its decision of September 13, 1989 or
    overlooked facts in the record. IBP has failed to demonstrate
    that its permit application as submitted to the Agency
    establishes that the facility will not cause a violation of the
    Act, absent the contested conditions. ISP’s motion for
    reconsideration is hereby denied.
    while not required for today’s disposition, the Board makes
    several observations. First, 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.102 states
    that the size of the mixing zones shall be determined based on
    six criteria, but in no event shall it exceed 25 of the flow of
    the stream. All of ISP’s calculations presume, without
    justification, the full 25 of stream flow as a mixing zone; any
    presumptions, therefore, would appear to be on ISP’s part.
    Further, the Board must note that ISP did not contest this same
    residual chlorine level when it was in the prior permit, and ISP
    appears to have been generally in compliance with it stating only
    that it was having “some difficulty” at compliance (Rec.,
    000060). Finally, ISP’s assertion that they have demonstrated,
    “the resulting residual chlorine level in the stream did not
    result in instream toxicity” (Motion for Reconsideration, p.2) is
    without support. ISP condLoted no stream sampling, no bioassays,
    and provided no information whatsoever on the toxicological
    properties of residual chlorine. Nor has ISP provided
    calculations to show that absent the contested conditions, ISP’s
    discharge would not violate the ammonia nitrogen water quality
    standards.
    The Board notes that ISP is free to file a new application
    with the Agency and demonstrate that such conditions are not
    necessary.
    Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act, Ill. Rev.
    Stat. 1985, ch. 1114, par. 1041, provides for appeal of final
    Orders of the Board within 35 days. The Rules of the Supreme
    Court of Illinois establish filing requirements.
    IT
    IS SO ORDERED
    11)5-11)4
    —3—
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify th the above Order was adopted on
    the /5tZ day of _______________________, 1989, by a vote
    of 7-
    O.
    Dorothy M. ,~unn, Clerk
    Illinois Po’~lutionControl Board
    11)5~i~)5

    Back to top