ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
November
5,
1981
tr~J.~INOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY,
)
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB
78—62
)AVENPORr
PACKING
COMPANY,
INC.,
)
Respondent.
MR.
WILLIAM
B. BLAKNEY, Assistant Attorney General, appeared on
behalf of Complainant.
MR. 3OHN L. PARKER appeared on behalf of Respondent Davenport
Packing Company,
Inc.; MR.
ROBERT G. SCOTT appeared on behalf
of VILLAGE OF MILAN.
OPIUION
AND
ORDER
OF
THE
BOARD
(by I.
Goodman):
On March
8,
1978 Complainant filed this action against
Davenport Packing Company,
Inc.
(Davenport) alleging violations
of Rules
953(a) and 701(a)
of Chapter
3:
Water Pollution Rules
and Regulations, and consequential violations of Sections 12(a)
and
(b)
of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act
(Act).
On
March 15,
1979 the Board granted Davenport’s motion to add the
Village of Milan,
in Rock Island County,
as party Respondent.
Although discovery was initiated in early April of 1978, and
hearing was first set for May
25,
1978,
no hearings were held
until September 9—11,
1980,
almost two and one—half years
later.
The Board’s docket contains thirteen motions
to continue hearing.
The post—hearing motion to
dismiss
Milan as party Respondent is
granted since no complaint alleging violations by Milan exists
in the record.
The Board has received no public comment in this
‘natter.
Davenport is
located within the Village of Milan,
Illinois
tnd discharges its wastewater
into Milan’s sewer system.
Daven—
jx)rt’s facility processes cattle, beginning with live animals and
ending with dressed carcasses which are further processed
by
others.
The process includes slaughtering, bleeding, skinning,
an~1dismemberment.
During this process, blood and solids,
excluding internal organs, are washed into a collection basin
along with other wastewater.
The collection basin acts as a
settling and skimming tank,
the discharge from which is directed
to the Milan
sewer system.
Each morning the basin is pumped down
and discharged into a rotating strainer.
The strainer retains
44—1
2
solids and congealed grease,
if any,
for
recovery
as
byproduct
by Davenport; the remainder
is discharged to the Milan sewers.
The Agency alleges that wastewater was discharged by
Davenport into the Milan sewer system at a flow of over 50,000
gallons per average workday since December 31,
1972.
This waste—
water
is alleged to contain toxic and other pollutants and to
contribute over
15
of both hydraulic flow loading and biological
loading of the Milan sanitary treatment plant.
During a period
from October,
1976 through June,
1977, Milan’s sanitary treatment
plant effluent allegedly exceeded the concentrations of biochemical
oxygen demand
(BOD) and total suspended solids
(TSS) allowed by
the State.
The Agency alleges that these excursions were caused
by Davenport’s alleged violation of Rule 701(a) of Chapter
3, e.g.,
that Davenport’s wastes discharged to sewers owned by the Village
of Milan are prohibited because, by reason of their nature or
quality, they may cause the plant’s effluent to violate applicable
effluent standards.
In addition, the Agency alleges that Davenport
is a major contributing industry pursuant to Rule
104 of Chapter
3 of the Board’s Regulations,
and as
such, operated pretreatment
equipment without having first been issued an operating permit by
the Agency.
The first issue to be considered by the Board is the
allegation that Milan’s excursions were caused by the type and
manner of discharge by Davenport to the sewer.
There is some
question as to precisely what standards Milan was to meet during
the period of the complaint.
Board Rule 404(f) calls for a
limitation of
4 mg/i BOD and
5 mg/i TSS,
The Board recently
repealed Rule 404(f) with respect to the 4/5 standard,
leaving in
its place Rule 404(c) which calls
for a 10/12 standard.
Milan’s
NPDES permit contains limitations of
10 mg/l BOD and 15 mg/i TSS
arid
the
4/5
limits under certain conditions.
ifl
addition,
one
of
the permits was modified by an Enforcement Schedule Compliance
Letter issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
setting limitations of 50 mg/i BOD and 50/mg/l TSS.
Fortunately,
the Board need not make a determination as to which standard
applied
in this case since there is ample evidence that Milan
exceeded even the most generous of the limitations cited
(R.368;
Complainant’s Group Exhibit 16).
Milan’s treatment plant was designed for a hydraulic
discharge of 412,500 gallons per day from Davenport out of a total
loading of 1.7 million gallons per day for the entire treatment
plant
(R.626).
Complainant’s Exhibit 7 contains certain results
of a study made by a consultant for Milan concerning the hydraulic
and organic loading of Milan’s sanitary treatment plant by the City
and by Davenport.
Although part of the data falls outside of the
time period encompassed by this Complaint,
the data ascertained
during the first eight work days of the study is competent.
That
data indicates an average workday hydraulic flow of approximately
255,000 gallons or about
18.8
of the total
flow (Complainant’s
Exhibit 7).
Considering those figures and the fact that the
4A— 2
3
basement of Davenport’s plant began flooding within an hour after
Davenport’s sewer had been blocked leads the Board to find that
Davenport
discharged
in
excess
of
50,000
gallons
per
day
to
Milan’s
sewers,
contributing
in
excess
of
15
of
Milan’s
total
hydraulic
load
(R.
391—4;
Complainant’s
Exhibit
7).
The Plant Superintendent of Milan’s sewage treatment plant
testified that Davenport is the only major industry which
discharges
to
the
Village
sewer
system
(R,35l,
366).
According
to the record, Davenport routinely pumps the waste from its cal—
lection basin through a rotary screen and into the sewer system
during a three—to—four hour period each workday mornings.
The
purpose of this process
is
to recover solids from the collection
basin
for
further
processing.
A
sudden
sustained
increase
in
loading
on the sewage treatment plant may well load the treatment
plant past its hour-by—hour capacity.
Therefore, since material
from Davenport
is discharged to the treatment plant as described
above,
the
treatment
plant
might
experience
higher
total
levels
of
discharge.
The
competent
portion
of
Complainant’s
Exhibit
7
shows
an
average
percent
flow
discharge
from
Davenport
Packing
Company
of
18.8
of
the
total
flow
to
Milan,
an
average
of
59,1
of
the
total
BOD
loading,
and
an
average
43,3
of
the
TSS
loading,
all
based
on
data
collected
on
workdays
only.
The
foregoing
averages compare favorably with those averages indicated for
the entire twenty-eight day period,
some of which was collected
subsequent to the filing of the Complaint herein.
Testimony
concerning
the
“reddish
brown
coloration”
of
the
raw
sewage
entering Milan’s treatment plant is further indication of the
effect of Davenport’s discharge upon the treatment plant
(R,73—75).
Davenport has made no effort to present witnesses in rebuttal
or in mitigation of the evidence presented to support the Complaint
but rather attempted to show by cross—examination and argument that
Complainant had failed to present a prima facie case,
In addition,
Davenport argues that the problem lies with Milan and its treatment
plant.
The Board disagrees.
Davenport cannot discharge its
effluent to the sewer system of the City of Milan in any manner it
desires and then claim that the problem is with Milan’s inability
to cope with the discharge.
This is precisely the situation that
the Board addressed when it promulgated Rule 701 which prohibits
the discharge of wastes to any sewer owned by any municipality
which, by reason of its nature or quantity, may cause the effluent
from the treatment works to violate applicable effluent standards.
The Board finds Davenport in violation of Rule 701(a) and
12(a)
of
the Act.
Therefore, based on the design criteria and discharge
amounts supporting the violation of Rule 701(a)
and 12(a)
of the
Act,
the Board further finds that Davenport is a major contributiciq
industry as defined by Rule
104 of Chapter
3:
Water Pollution.
The other issues the Board must consider in this case
is
whether or not the collection basin and the rotary screen operated
by Davenport from which it discharges its effluent to the Milan
sewer system constitutes a pretreatment system and if
so,
does
it
44—3
4
require
an
operating
permit.
A
pretreatment
works
is
a
treatment
works
designed
and
intended
for
treatment
of
wastewater
from
a
major contributing industry,
The Board has previously found that
Davenport is a major contributing industry.
Davenport argues that
the only purpose for the collection basin is to collect the
large,
heavy material for the purpose of recovery.
In support of their
argument, Davenport indicates that the collection basin is pumped
down
through
the
rotating
screen
once
each
morning,
and
the
material
collected
in
the
rotating
screen
is
recovered
and
reprocessed.
Davenport
also
appears
to
argue
that
there
is
no
discharge from the collection basin directly to the sewer,
The
Agency
agrees
that
the
collection
basin
and
rotating
screen
situated just prior to discharge to Milan’s sewer system was
intended
to
and
does
allow
settling
of
large
and
heavy
masses
which result from the slaughter operation.
However, the Agency
claims
that
without
this
collection
basin,
this
material
would
be and has been discharged directly into Milan’s sewage system,
could overload the BOD
and
TSS amounts at the Milan treatment
plant, could block the Milan sewage system, and could cause
Davenport’s basement to flood.
The
Board
must
reject
Davenport’s
argument.
Since
Davenport
presented no witnesses, there is only the Agency’s evidence of
such a discharge:
the hydraulic load discharged to Milan’s sewer
system;
the photographs of the obviously unscreened material
contained in Davenport’s effluent and the fact that Davenport’s
basement began flooding within an hour after its sewer was blocked.
This indicates to the Board that there was indeed unscreened
effluent discharging from Davenport’s collection basin notwith-
standing the fact that the Agency did not present a witness who
had
actually
seen
the
discharge
(Complainant’s
Exhibits
17,
18
and
19;
R.388—394),
The
Board
finds
that
Davenport’s settling
tank
is
a
pretreatment
works,
The
fact
that
Davenport
recovers
the
solids
trapped
in
the
tank
and
reprocesses
them
is
of
no
consequence.
The solids would have to be recovered and disposed
of
in some manner,
such as a landfill,
in any event,
Having determined that Davenport operates a pretreatment
system, the Board must address the possibility of an exemption
from the operating permit requirement.
Board Rule 953(d)
expressly excludes from the requirement of an operating permit
any pretreatment works that will not discharge:
toxic pollutants:
15
or more of the total hydraulic flow received by the treatment
works; or
15
or more of the total biological
loading received by
the treatment works as measured by BOD.
Davenport argues that all
three of these conditions must be met before an operating permit
is required.
Thus,
it states,
in the absence of
a showing that
Davenport has discharged toxic pollutants,
there was no operating
permit requirement.
The obvious corollary to that argument
is
that unless
a pretreatment plant discharges more than 15
of the
total BOD loading and total hydraulic flow received by the treat-
ment works,
it need not have a pretreatment permit regardless of
the amount or type of toxic pollutants it discharges.
Davenport’s
44—4
5
interpretation
of
Rule
953(d)
is
patently
absurd.
The
Board
holds that a pretreatment works requires an operating permi.t if
any
one
of
the
three
conditions
stated
exists.
The
Board
has
previously found that Davenport discharges more than
15
of
both
the hydraulic flow and the biological
loading received by Milan’s
treatment works
and, therefore,
an operating permit for the
pretreatment works is required.
The Board finds Davenport in
violation of Rule 953(a) of the Board’s Water Regulations
and
12(b) of the Act.
It is apparent that Davenport must modify
its procedures
and/or its equipment to alleviate its
loading on the Milan
sewage treatment plant so that the treatment plant might achieve
compliance with the Board’s regulations.
To that end,
the Board
will order Davenport to develop a plan for pretreatment of its
discharge to be presented to the Agency within
90 days of the
date of this Order.
Davenport shall also obtain the permits
required by its pretreatment works from the Agency.
In considering a penalty, the Board must consider the factors
listed under Section 33(c)
of the Environmental Protection Act.
There appears to be no issue with regard to the social and
economic value of Davenport or the suitability or unsuitability
of the pollution source to the area in which it is located or the
technical practicability or economic reasonableness of reducing
or eliminating the discharge.
With regard to the character and
degree of injury to or interference with the protection of the
health, general welfare, and physical property of the people,
the Board finds that Davenport’s discharges have interfered with
Milan’s ability to control the effluent from its sanitary
treatment plant.
In addition,
the record indicates that Davenport
has been reticent in addressing the problem (Complainant’s Exhibit
1, Respondent’s Exhibit
1).
The Board shall therefore assess a
penalty
of
$2,000
against Davenport in order to
further
the
purposes
of
the
Illinois Environmental Protection Act.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s finding of facts and
conclusions in this matter.
ORDER
1.
Davenport Packing Company,
Inc.
is
found in violation
of Rules 701(a) and 953(a) of the Board’s Regulations, Chapter 3:
Water Pollution and Sections
12(a) and
(b)
of the Illinois
Environmental Protection Act.
2.
Within 90 days of the date of this Order, Davenport
Packing Company,
Inc.
shall present
to the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency for its acceptance a proposed plan to correct
the violation of Rule 701(a)
found in paragraph
1 above.
44—5
6
3.
Davenport
shall
acquire
a
Permit
from
the
Agency
for
its
pretreatment
works.
4.
Davenport Packing Company,
Inc.
shall
pay
the
penalty
of $2,000
for the violations indicated in paragraph
1 above,
said
penalty to be sent to Fiscal Service Division, Illinois Environ-
mental Protection Agency,
2200 Churchill Road,
Springfield,
Illinois 62706.
5.
The
City
of
Milan
is
hereby
dismissed
from
this
action.
6.
The
Board
shall
retain
jurisdiction
in
this
matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I,
Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control
Board,
hereby9ertify
that the above Opinion and Order
was
adopted~9n the
~
day
of
(~-~
~
,
1981 by
a
vote
of
-
C
.
Christan
L.
Moff~ét*~,,Clerk
Illinois Pollutio~C~ntrolBoard
44—6