ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
January
27,
1983
IBP,
INC.,
)
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 82—131
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by
1.
Anderson):
This matter comes before the Board on
the petition for
variance of IBP, Inc.
(IBP)
filed November
1 and amended
November
24,
1982.
IBP seeks variance from a)
35
Iii. Mm. Code
309.102 to allow it to discharge wastewater even though
the UPDES
permit issued to the prior owner has expired,
and IBP itself has
rio
permit, and b)
Section 304.120(a)
as
it relates
to BOD~,total
suspended solids
(TSS), pH and oil and grease
(0
& G).*
~
November 24,
1982 IBP moved for expedited consideration of its
petition, which
is granted.
On December 10,
1982 the Agency
filed
its Recommendation in support of grant of variance with
conditions
as
to the BOD5 and TSS parameters, hut also suggested
that the balance of the petition be denied as
seeking unnecessary
relief.
Hearing was waived and none has been held.
In August, 1982 IBP purchased from Dubuque Packing Co.
(Dubuque)
a beef slaughter and processing plant located near
Joslin in Rock Island County.
Dubuque had applied for renewal
of
its NPDES permit on June
21,
1982, as
it was due
to expire
July
1,
1982.
No permit
was
denied or issued.
IBP itself has
not been issued an NPDES permit.
The plant is designed to slaughter 1,500 head/day of
cattle, and to process 700 head/day.
IBP wishes to expand the
plant
to a slaughter capacity of 2,635 head/day arid an additional
processing capacity of 4,000 head/day
(to accommodate cattle
slaughtered at other facilities).
IBP expects
to employ 250
personnel at initial start—up,
and about 1,450 after expansion is
completed.
*As
the 0
& C effluent limitation
is contained
in 304.124,
and that for pH
in 304.125, and not in
304.120(a),
the Board
construes
this petition
as seekinq variance from these
sections
as
well.
51-59
2
As part of the expansion,
IBP seeks
to upgrade the existing
wastewater treatment facilities, which were constructed
in 1970.
During this expansion, for which
interim effluent limitations ar~
sought for about 18 months,
IT3P proposes to gradually increase
its slaughter capacity to the aforementioned level
of
2635 head!
day, but to refrain from processing activities.
The existing facilities consist of
2 anaerobic lagoons
(2.03
acres each),
1 aerated cell
(.59 acres),
arid
3 aerobic lagoons
(41.37,
28,49 and 11.24) acres,
all operated in a series.
Dis-
charge
is
to the Rock River,
IEP plans
to add a third anaerobic
lagoon, to abandon the cell and
aerobic lagoons,
arid to construL
a secondary treatment system consisting
of an oxidation ditch
with an intra—channel clarifier.
Estimated costs
off this work ~ir~
$2.1 million.
The original
system was designed to handle waste from the
slaughter,
etc.
of 1,350 head/day, resulting in a hydraulic
loading of 1.41 mgd as an average and organic
loading of 15,400
lbs/day,
BOD5 based on a six day work week.
During the expansion
period, IBP stated that the hydraulic loads will initially avera~je
.75 mgd and increase to 1.8 mgd.
Ultimate organic loads are
estimated to be 28,985 lb./day BOD~,9,222 lb./day oil and grease,
23,978 ih./day TSS.
(The Agency n6tes
that as
IBP will not engage
in processing during this expansion, that maximum hydraulic and
organic loads
are respectively estimated to he 1.32
rrigd and
21,080 lb/day BOD5.)
IBP asserts that the existing system
is incapable of
consistently treating waste
loads
to the effluent standards,
even
by storing treated wastewater
in the aerobic lagoons on a seasonal
basis.
(Dubuque discharged effluent only 2—3 times yearly.)
In
fact, the entire system is filled to capacity with water that
cannot be discharged because it fails
to meet effluent standards.
IBP
therefore
seeks
to
operate the system on a
continuous
discharge
basis
and
proposes
interim
limits
to
he
met
during
the
expansion
period.
The proposed limitations,
as contrasted with the effluent
limitations, are
~ose~
Limit
Effluent Stanciard
BOO5
45 mg/i avg.
90 mg/i max.
20 mg/i max.
TSS
90 mg/i avg.
130 mg/i max,
25 mg/i max.
O & G
30 mg/i
15 mg/i
pH
6—10
mg/i
6—9 mg/i
51-60
3
ISP analysis of a single sample taken from the aerobic lagoon
system September 21, 1982 shows readings of 19 mg/i
BODç,
78 mg/i
‘P55,
1 mg/i 0 & C,
and 9.3 mg/i pH.
The Agency noted that
Dubuque’s Discharge Monitoring Reports for January—March,
1982 anI
February—March,
1981 show discharges at levels ranging in mg/i
from 10.3 mg/i to 19.8 average and 10.3 to 27.0 maximum for SOD5,
14.7 to 24.5 average and 14.9 to 30.0 for TSS,
1.5 to 2.3 average
and 1.5 to 5.8 maximum for 0 & C, and 8.0 to 8.9 average and 8.3
to 8.9 maximum for pH.
ISP asserts that there would be no adverse environmental
impact if variance is granted.
In support thereof ISP presented
calculations concerning the incremental effects of the expected
discharge under “worst case” conditions.
It states that at the
seven day
—
10 year low stream flow of 1306 cfs in the Rock River
at the point of discharge, concentrations of 45 mg/i
BODç
and
90 mg/i
‘P55 in treated effluen~flowfrom 1.8 mgd would Increase
concentrations of these parameters respectively by 0.10 parts per
million
(ppm) and 0.19 ppm.
ISP believes that at average stream
flow conditions, this increase in concentration would be
undetectable by current analytical methods.
The Agency concurs that the impact of ISP’s
SOD
and
‘P55
discharges would be minimal.
Twelve samples from a
ater qualtty
monitoring station 2 miles upstream of the discharge taken between
october, 1980 and September,
1981 show ranges for dissolved oxygen
and
‘PSS respectively to be between 7.3 and 14.9 mg/l, and
4 and
406 mg/i.
Given the large volume of flow of the river, as
well
as the high background suspended solids within it, additional
‘P55 and BODç loadings are expected to have minimal, if any,
short
term adversd environmental impacts.
As an alternative method to achieve compliance, ISP has
investigated the feasibility of expanding the existing anaerobic/
aerobic lagoon system, and adding filtration equipment for removal
of suspended solids, at a cost of $2,580,800.
This was rejected
because it was determined that overall systems efficiencies tsoul1
be marginal, and maintenance costs would be high.
ISP asserts that denial of variance would impose an arbitrary
or unreasonable hardship on itself, the local community,
and
on
area cattle feeders.
IEP has invested $15 million to date in the
plant and property, and expects to expend significant amounts in
expanding the plant’s capacity.
It asserts that if commencement
of operations is postponed for 18 months that it will lose money,
that the community will be denied the interim benefit of 250 to
1450 jobs,
and
that cattle feeders will lose access to ISP as a
market.
The Agency is of the opinion that the
‘P55 and SODç variance
request should be granted, based on its assessment of ffiinimal
environmental impact and acceptance of tSP’s assertions
concerning alternative compliance options and hardship.
However,
51-61
4
it believes that tap should not now be allowed to increase its
kill rate beyond Dubuque’s due to a potential of odor problems
resulting from increased SOD loading in the aerobic lagoons.
A hydrogen sulfide (rotten egg) odor near the lagoons was
noted by an Agency inspector in January and November, 1979 and in
November, 1981.
Air pollution control inspectors as well as local
residents confirm the odor problem, described by the Agency as
currently being “existing but not particularly severe”.
The Agency has solicited data and views from ISP concerning
this problem.
The tilinois Recommended Standards for Sewage Works
suggests a maximum of
SOD
loading of 22 lbs/acre/day for aerobic
lagoons.
At a kill rate of 2,635 head/day,
the Agency calculates
that the
SOD
loading on the first aerobic lagoon would range
between a minimum of 39, maximum 213,
~pd average 92 lbs/acre day.
(This is calculated on a SOD loading td the aerated cell of 5,280
lbs/day, and the cell’s percent SOD removal capabilities as being
a maximum 69.4 and minimum —66.8
(sic) and average 28.2, based on
performance data concerning the cell.)
Thus,
the Agency asserts
that, on a theoretical level, there is no assurance that
significant odors might not result at the 2,635 head/day kill
rate.
The Agency therefore recommends two alternative conditions.
The first is that the kill rate be limited to 1500 head/day until
such time as sufficient proof is given to the Agency that
ROD
loadings to the first aerobic lagoon will not exceed 22 lbs/acre/
day.
(Improvement in the anaerobic lagoons’ or aerated removal
cell’s capabilities or in the slaughterhouse’ by—product
recovery operation could result in lower SOD loadings.)
The
alternative condition would provide for an increased kill rate
upon construction and operation of interim treatment system
modifications or other measures to control lagoon odors.
The
Agency feels that the adequacy of such measures would be assured
through Agency permit review.
It also recommended, as general
maintenance procedures that a complete grease cover be maintained
on the anaerobic lagoons,
and that the aerobic cell will not be
allowed to go septic.
Agency inspectors and area residents identified two other
aspects of the plant’s operations as causing odor problems of more
severity than the lagoon odor.
The most severe odor has come from
the rendering room,
apparently because doors have occasionally
been left open since an afterburner has become inoperable.
The
Agency recommends that the
‘PSS and SOD variance be conditioned on
compliance with an existing air permit issued to ISP’s predecessor
and
subject to transfer to ISP.
Odors from paunch manure land application were the subject
of a variance petition by Dubuque
(PCB
76—117) and a permit
denial appeal (PCS 80—95), which resulted in issuance of a water
pollution permit also subject to transfer to ISP.
Again, the
Agency recommends that this variance be conditioned on compliance
with that permit.
51-62
5
The Agency recommends denial of variance concerning the
C)
&
C~
and pH parameters
on the grounds
that relief
is unnecessary.
As
to
pH, Section 304.125(d)(1) provides
that the
9 mg/i rnaximi~car~
he
exceeded
if the elevated level
is caused entirely by algae
in
the lagoons.
In the Agency~sopinion,
IBP is covered by
this
provision.
As
to 0
&
G,
the Agency believes that by applying
the rweraging rule of Section 304.104(a)(2),
IBP will
be able
to
comply with the 304~124(a)standard,
It further believes that no relief
is needed from 309.102.
It
reasons
that
since
Duhuque
had
made
a
timely
application
for
renewal
of
its permit, that
the
permit
remains
in
effect
pursiianl.
to Ill.
Rev,_Stat.
Ch.
127, §1016(a).
This permit would therefore
he subject to transfer to IBP at
its
request, pursuant
to
40
CFR
122.14(a),
as modified by any variance granted by the Board.
Balancing the minimal,
if any, environmental effects of gra’~!~
of v~riariceas
to the BOB and TSS parameters against
the ecoflomic
har~nto TBP and the surrounding community, the Board
finds that
denial of variance would impose an arbitrary
or
unreasonable
hardsip.
An 18—month variance from Section 304.120(a)
is
granted
as
to these parameters,
subject
to conditions.
As
to
rendering room and paunch manure application odors,
the
Board declines
to
condition grant of
this variance on
corrtpiiance
with
other
permits
which
may
or
may
not
1e
transferred
to
IBP,
and
which
govern
activities
which
have
not
been
alleged
by
either
party
to
be
ongoing
during the variance
term.
As
to
lagoon
odors,
based
upon
this
record
the
Board
is
unable
to
fashion
any
reasonable
condition
to
minimize
potential
odors
basei
on
slaughter
rates.
The figures
as given would
tend
to
indicate
that
a
22
Lb/acre/day
BOO
loading
to
the
first
aerobic
lagoon
cait
he maintained even at a 1500 head/day rate only
if
the
aerated
cell operates at a 70
removal
capacity;
no
data has been pre~.;uot~l
to
confirm that noisome odors
will
he eliminated
if
the 22 lhs/
acre/day BOD loading
is maintained.
Inclusion of a specifi.c
BOT)
loading figure could give the appearance
that
the
Board was——as
it
is not——condoning
an odor nuisance up to
a specific
slaughter
rate,
and was thereby insulating
IBP from possible enforcement.
The Board will therefore include only
a general condition
requiring IBP to take all reasonable measures
to prevent escape
of annoying odors,
Variance from Sections
304.124, 304.125 and 309.102 is
denied
as
unnecessary.
This
Opinion
constitutes
the
findings
of
fact
and
conclusions
of law
of
the Board in
this
matter.
ORDER
~.
Petitioner
IBP,
Inc.
is granted
variance from
35
Iii.
Adm.
Code 304.120(a) for its Joslyn beef slaughter and prOCessin~j
plant subject to the following conditions;
51-63
6
a)
This variance shall
expire four months after
completion of upgraded wast-ewater treatment
facij’iti.es
i~’
completion
occurs
between
Hovember and
March,
or
2 months
thereafter
if completion
occurs
bett~neenApril and October.
In
no event shall variance
extend
beyond July
1,
1984.
b)
During the term of
this variance,
existing
treatment facilities may
be
operated on a consistent clis-
charge basis,
Discharge shall
meet
the
following effluent
1 imitations:
BOD5
——
45
mg/l
30 day average,
qo
mg/i maximum
TSS~——90 mg/i
30 day average,
130 mg/i daily maximum
c)
As expeditiously as is practicable,
IBP shall
upgrade
its existing treatment facilities
as outlined in
its
November
1,
1982 variance petition.
In
the interim,
the
existing facilities
shall be operated and maintained
in
the
best manner practicable.
A complete grease cover shall
he
maintained on the anaerobic lagoons, and the aerobic cell
shall not he allowed to become septic.
d)
IBP shall take all reasonable measures
to
ensure
that no odors will escape which may he
injurious to the
health of,
or unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of
life or property of, nearby residents.
2.
Variance from
35
111.
Adm. Code 304.124, 304.125 and
309.102 is denied
as unnecessary.
3,
Within forty—five days
of
the date of this Order,
Petitioner shall execute and forward to the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency,
2200 Churchill
Road,
Springfield,
Illinois
62706,
a Certificate of Acceptance and Agreement
to be bound
to
all terms and conditions of this variance.
This forty—five day
period shall he held
in abeyance for any period this matter
is
being appealed.
The form of
the
certificate
shall
be as follows:
CERTI~’CATE
I,
(We),
,
having read
the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board in PCB 82—131
dated
____
——
,
understand and accept the
said Order,
realizing that such acceptance renders
all terms and
conditions thereto binding and enforceable.
Petitioner
By:
Au?b~or
izedAgent
51-64
7
Title
Date
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I,
Christan L.
Moffett, Clerk of
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control Board, hereby c~rtifythat the
above
Opinion
and
Order
was adopted
on~~the
~‘‘
day of
,
1983
by a vote of
____
,-//
Christan
L. Moffett, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
51-65