ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

December 20, 1985

ARCHER DANIELS MIDLAND CO.,

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 85—204

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent~~

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by W.J. Nega):

This provisional variance request comes before the Board

upon a December 18, 1985 Recommendation of the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency (Agency). The Agency recommends

that a 45—day provisional variance be granted to Archer Daniels

Midland Company (Company) from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.120(c), The

Agency also construes the Company’s request for relief from

Special Condition *2 of Agency permit 1983—SA—1521 as relief from

35 Ill. Adm. Code 309.102(a) in that the Petitioner does not

presently have an NPDES Permit for the needed discharge. The

Agency also recommends that the Board grant the Petitioner a

provisional variance from 35 Iii. Adm. Code 309.102(a) and

indicates that such relief is similar to that granted by the

Board in PCB 84—15 to Continental Grain Company (i.e., the

previous owner of the facility in question). (Rec. 1).

The Petitioner owns and operates a soybean processing plant

on an 80—acre site in Taylorville, Illinois. The Company’s

wastewater treatment facilities include both aerobic and

anaerobic lagoons (i.e., two 1—acre lagoons operated in

series). Effluent which is discharged from the Petitioner’s

lagoon system subsequently flows into a final spray irrigation

system which includes 24 spray nozzles located on a 32—acre

irrigation field for land applying lagoon—treated flows. (Rec.

1). Most of the irrigation field is surrounded by a dike which

is between two and three feet high.

The discharge of any flows from the seepage field is

currently prohibited by Agency construction and operating permit

1983—SA—l521. Flows which exceed the 200 gallon per minute

pumping capacity of the Petitioner’s spray irrigation pump are

diverted during wet weather onto the irrigation fields by three

stormwater discharge pipes which are located along the southern

edge of the Company’s irrigation field. The field tile

underlying the seepage field collects seepage into the soil and

this seepage can later be recycled back to the irrigation field

or to the cooling tower to be utilized as makeup water. The

aforementioned system is used to treat all storm water, non—

contact cooling water, and process water from the Petitioner’s

site. (Rec.. 1).

87-127

—2—

The Company’s irrigation field is presently under

approximately 2 1/2 feet of water in spots as a result of recent

very heavy rainfall. There would be about 26 million gallons on

the irrigation field if the entire field were covered at this

depth. However, the Company estimates that there is currently

approximately 16 million gallons of water on the irrigation

field, since the entire field is not covered at this depth.

(Rec. 1). Because of the previously mentioned heavy rainfall,

the Petitioner’s lagoons are presently filled to capacity and two

(itscharges have occurred since November 21, 1985. The Company is

very concerned about possible damage to the dikes surrounding the

irrigation field and about possible uncontrolled discharge of

flows from the field by failure of the dikes9 especially in light

of the large accumulation of 16 million gallons of water, (Rec.

1).

At the present time, the Petitioner is in the process of

receiving an NPDES Permit from the Agency to allow the discharge

of non—contact cooling water and other miscellaneous flows into

the receiving stream (i.e., the permit is currently in the

“public notice” period). The total flows involved are expected

to be about 47,000 gallons per day. The Company is also in the

process of evaluating whether it is feasible for it to connect to

the Taylorville Sanitary District for treatment of its process

wastes, The Agency has noted that, when the Petitioner’s NPDES

Permit is issued, if process flows are removed from the existing

facilities, then about 97,000 gallons per day would be removed

from the system and it would then be only surface runoff from the

treatment process. (Rec. 2).

The Petitioner’s discharge monitoring reports to the Agency

pertaining to the quality of the flows discharged to its

irrigation fields have indicated the following parameters:

Sample   

BOO

TSS

pH Chlorine Res. Amnon. N  F. Coliform

Date   

(mg/I)  (mg/I)  

(SU)  

(mg/i)    

(mg/i)   

(#/100 ml)

8/22/85  32.3   

54

6.42  

0

1.2

341

6/28/85

76.1

6.99

0.84

TNTC*

5/30/85  62.1   

6.93   

0.23    

229

4/30/85

17.2

6.95

3,10

3/20/85

18.1

6.85

1,80

2000

12/04/84  

20

24

6.9

0

0.53    

658

11/26/84

14.6

6,8

0.76

*T~JJ1C

too nun~rousto count

(Rec. 2).

The Agency has stated that it assumes that the water is of

sufficient quality to be acceptable, due to the treatment

provided by the irrigation field and indications from samples of

the ponded water taken in 1984 to support Continental Grain

Company’s variance petition in PCB 84-15. (Rec. 2). However,

the Agency is still concerned that the Company has not fully

67-128

--3—

~evelcped potential alternative compliance methods, especially

prrtaining to the recycling process to the cooling tower.

Accordingly, the Agency has recommended, as a condition to the

variance being granted, that the Petitioner be required to

recycle as much flow as possible to the cooling tower. This

recommended condition appears to be appropriate, and will be

included in the Board’s Order.

The Agency believes that the environmental impact of the

proposed provisional variance will be minimal. This Agency

det2rmination is based upon the apparent minimal environmental

impact of the previous discharge in 1984 and the Agency’s

conclusion that “there is no reason to believe this discharge

will be sufficiently different to cause any adverse environmental

impact~. (Rec. 2). Because the closest downstream surface water

is over 200 miles downstream (i.e., the Alton Water Company on

the Mississippi River), the Agency anticipates no adverse

environmental impact on this water supply. (Rec, 2).

The Agency has concluded that compliance with the provisions

of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304,120(c) and 309.102(a) would impose an

arbitrary or unreasonable hardship upon the Archer Daniels

Midland Company. The Agency believes that the imminent danger ot

the failure of the Petitioner’s irrigation field dikes could

cause significantly more problems than a controlled release at

the

water. (Rec. 2). Moreover, the Agency has ascertained that

there are 

no federal regulations that would preclude the granting

of the requested relief.

Accordingly, the Agency has

recommended

that the Board grant the Petitioner a provisional variance from

35 Ill. Mm. Code 304,120(c) and 309.120(a), subject to

specified

conditions.

Pursuant to Section 35(b) of the Illinois Environmental

Protection Act, the

Board hereby grants the provisional variance

as recommended.

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and

conclusions of law in this matter.

ORDER

Archer Daniels Midland Company is hereby granted a

provisional variance from 35 Ill.. Adm, Code 304,120(c) and 35

Ill. Adm, Code 309,102(a) as it pertains to its wastewater

treatment facilities at its soybean processing plant in

Taylorville, Illinois, subject to the following conditions:

1. This provisional variance shall commence on December 20,

1985 and shall terminate on February 3, 1986.

2. By January 15, 1986, the Petitioner shall submit a

schedule outlining when steps will be taken to determine if

process waters will be directed to the Taylorville Sanitary

District. This schedule shall include the steps that would be

necessary should the decision be to divert flows to the District.

67-129

--4—

The Petitioner shall return as much of ponded water as

possible through the spray recycle and cooling water systems so

as to minimize the amount of water which is discharged.

4. The Petitioner shall keep records of the running time

and the capacity of the pumps in order to estimate the amount

of

flow discharged each day.

5.

The Petitioner shall

sample, using NPDES approved

methodologies, 

the

discharge for BOD, TSS, 

pH,

ammonia nitrogen,

chlorine residual and fecal coliform.

The Petitioner 

shall

submit to the Agency Its estimated

flow arid laboratory analyses to the address shown below.

The Petitioner 

shall

discharge to the drainage ditch in

such a manner 

that the

flow can be controlled and measured for

how preferably by the 

use of

pumps.

8. The Petitioner shall notify the Agency’s Springfield

Regional Office (217/786—6892) by telephone of whenever

discharging is commenced.

9. within 10 days of the date of the Board’s Order, the

Petitioner shall execute a Certificate of Acceptance and

Agreement which shall be sent to Mr. James Frost of the Agency at

the following address:

Mr. James Frost

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Division of Water Pollution Control

Compliance Assurance Section

2200 Churchill Road

Springfield, Illinois 62706

This certification

shall have the following form:

67- 130

--5—

CERTIFICATION

I, (We), 

having read

the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board in PCB 85—207,

dated December 20, 1985, understand and accept the said Order,

realizing that such acceptance renders all terms and conditions

thereto binding and enforceable.

Peti tioner

By: Authorized Agent

Title

Date

IT IS SO ORDERED,

I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was

adopted on the 

day ~       

1985 by a vote

of

/—°

~7”~-t~-~ .4

9~

Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

67-131