ILLINOIS

‘~

_

71

(

3,

7

GILl EDGE FARMo,

INC

Petr~~‘u

V

ILLINOIS

~NVIRON!L’V

PROTECTION AGENCY,

s

Respo

n~

JOHN B

3HflON, ~

rr~

,

S

I U

r

D

,

APPEARED ON BEHALF 0

ID

171

r

STEPHEN

ROSSMFRK

ASo

C

I

D

N

BEHALF OF THE RES

NDIUII

OPINION

AND

ORDER

OF

EBB

BOARD

~by

Icx’oi.

This

matter

cci~s

dote

ie

3

u

a

p

ti

ha

for

variance filed May 13

193

5

,

(GE)

a

Delaware corporatio

Ftc

~

r

~

lLa~

ir

once

from

Sections

8

and

9(a

of

tns

fl

r

~o

~

1

o

e”tic1i

Act

(Act) andRul’

12

2

/

i

-‘

802(c)

ard

80

(d)

I

L.a t

I

~

1)4

d) (I)

104(d)

(2)

and

104

D’

t

rc

Slated

Polliticn,

14e

‘a

o

c

of

a

hog

raising

facility

a

S

e

~a

o

°

I

tte

Illinois

Environne~rt

~

1

16

(

r

cmn~anded

that

the

variar

cc

b

71~r

q

a

~ ~d with

conditio

s

0

3

dation.

The

Boor

cc

it

i

tron

pursuant

t

P

~)

c

The

Board

ye

~

requested

variarce

th.

r~

)

r

riac

~e

rings

were

held

in

Dakot4

o

JrJy

I

u

,

D81.

Members

of

the

pub1~

at

on

tic.

~rat

Lot

re~ for

and

against

the

variar

e

Ills

t

~

e

i~

rfor’ement

action

pending

an

the

U

cu

o~

n

unty

(!2sEi~oftheAtateofUan

°

Li~ Ferns,

80—CH~17)

The

hog

facility

rae

constructed

sn

lIay

1973

~Pct0

2)

~.

It

is

situated

on

a

tract

wit

in

the

N

2

3

Setror

10,

T27N,

R8E

of

the

4th

~

Stephens

it

.~‘r

~

a

~rregular

tract

appears

4jr~

9

---

to be about 200 acr~s

It ~

~

the Milwaukee

Railroad tracks

and Illinois

t

Ex

1)

Dakota is about

2

1/2 miles northeast of the site

The hog operation is towdr

t

ro ~iea~t corner of the

site, near the junction of B~ck8’ro~l~o~d with the railroad

and Route

75~

There are about

2~

buz

diLgs, sore connecteth

The

buildings describe

a semic~rclc

Near the ertrance,

on the

north, are the office, machuer~

r~

~.

n

,

i

I

-Feed and whey

storage

areas~ To the e~bta

I

nnscted grow-~-finish

bui1dings~ To the

southeas

of

hea -ne

wo gestation buildings,

each connected to

farrow building~

there are eight nursery

buildings.

To the

south, aloig th~railroad tracks,

are

gilt

pens~

Sewage

lagoons

are

to the s

_h of the buildings and

west

of the

gilt pens

(R.

13

Ex

1)

Animals move from sou’-h t

n

1.

~po~’1~e~he direction

of description

above,

from

gesta

~

farrowing, nursery and

grow finish.

Pigs

are eitler f~niJec

out. at the s~teand mar~

keted or sold as

feeder pigs

The facility produces an

average of about 30,000 swine

per

year, 10,000 over

55 pounds and 20 000 nu~der55 pounds.

There

are 6,000 to 15,000

animals on ~he site at any time, 11,000 at

the time of the hearing

(Pet

2

N

12).

Each building

has

a

slotted ccncrete floor,

Below is

a

concrete pit about

6 feet deep

!fle dxain is controlled by

a

3

1/2 foot

standpipe.

Liquid wastes pa~sthroncth the drain

to

lagoons, while

solids are pen

d c

ly punped f~rland applica-

tion

(Pet.

3,

R.

15).

The grow finish

buildings discharge to lacroon nuther

1;

the

gestation

and farrow buidings to 1g on rumber

2.

i3etween

1

and

2 are located

lagoons

3,

4

6 and

These

latter are sequen~

tial with overflow

going

tt~

g

&

i~-.,

w th hicther mnunber~.

There are pipes

from

1 and

2

a

enc

tc 5,

6 and

7

(R.

76,

98).

Any overflow frcmr

7

j

~-

by

~nc’npii~eto h Id ng ponds

8

and

9.

Watar from the ~n d

a ~

a

sed tot ~rnzgatron

and

watering cattle.

There is no dinci-a cc to waten~of the state

(R.

16,

19, Ex.

1

Pet.

3).

The facility

generates

-ibout 12,000 to 13 000 gallons

per

day of liquid wastes

The Agency

ci eie~t~eflow is

somewhat

higher.

The following are

the appn x~iatevolumes of

45—30

---

Dl

(Aj-~~\J.tt--

(Pet,

6)

Ia

thegr

1.

-

e

waster- an° ifl

-

—

purraina

.n

‘

o

nos a~quied

must

b-’

un d

becamr

f

S

‘4

r

-

ii

I

Ta

11

-

~

fç

~c

cintty

ii

o

-

rem into

lid

I

r

GEnas

Jc.

1

1

ilich

r

easibse

Th~neto

is

tion a~ abo~ 4 a~n~”

£

•

operation in tne apnrg

o-’~

~,

square and up to

1-i feet do

(N.

88).

The lag or

his

mip

waste

is

continuouaty

p

inn

-i--i

to keep soLid

i

“us

u

r

or add matcriai

(N

-

0

ahe faci tty

by-produ

t

f ci

s

i

was oblicme( Iv

cyrtr

facturers

f

ci

-‘

requirements

he cx

amounted

‘-o aba t

0

of this prati

Lain n

3

r

front the tog b

which tea_i’

crc

tn

•TL)C~

opera—

it

‘~satt:~’l

in

i

0

n— cw~ut200 feet

00,t~J

gallons

w

t:ir~

C.or

han

ted

-

~—o

1-ic lagoon

is S to withdraw

r~

~

then,

a

9°

GE

Ta7e~~i

mflpru—

a

Cow

4

About

—

0

is

pumpe

from

the

t

material in

tie

i

wagon or tank truck

-k

~1

r

-

r-

or

~ dge

et,

4

the

ad

a

vacuum

The pits beneath the gic

C

an

referred to as

~higt

lime

r

t

L

per year.

The others

ne

lo

volrre

only once per year

Increase1 r~u-p

g

compliance plan di”cussed ho

a-

(5’

~

d

r

:°xj

tuil-lings are

ran

beer

pumped twice

i

s~’

which have been pumped

f

ejuency is a part of the

~

97

Pet

15).

Number

i

2

4

6

I

9

‘3

4

2

-.0

andsa

9’

icr’

ii-

r

a-

a

I

S

c

V

)

S

I

V

I

an

is

(2.

22)

this

r

-‘-

2

‘ci

sa

.on

3

1

C-

5

---

The petition reqitested

r an

rot

c e ci regulations

in

Chapters 2 and b~ The Agc3~~

ito

or

ued

t

at riost of

these

are

inapplicable in this

at-c

~Iy ri~? GE apoears

to have ~ithdrawn the vartarce

~rr dl~eC

om all

but

Rule 102 of Clapter

2 and

a. n

o

I

c e

ct sill be

denied as unnecesoery

(F hav~

fit

t

den oDrat~ hat the

remaining regulations are me

r

v oh

ci

The Agency a gueo tiat th

a

c

g a.

a

ar~ance

from §9(a)

of the Ac

oe’ai~

D

~iSI-nrCy

~c

grant

variances from the

Ct itse

I

The A en y quotes

§35(a)

which

provides, in part

as foIl v

The Board may grant iada

a

vori~o

es

beynd tIe

limitatiors pre

nbc

is

,

er,evc

i~

is

found, upor prese t~ or

a

pr

I

that

compliance

qi

I

any ~u1

r gu a io

,

r

ci irerent

or

order of ton B and a

u

i

ito e or

i~

rary or

unreasonable hardship

This

language was in the Ic

when tr~Board was createth

From the

outset

the Board granted var~anc~sfrom the Act itself

especially

when there were ro rules

regulati ns, requirements

or

orders of the Board from wit ch tc

grant varrances

(Deere

&Co~

v,

IEPA, PCB

70~2O, I PCB 2’3

te~eiiber 2,

i970)

This was

acce~E~dat a

time

when the

I

ate ~“tye h:story wa~fresh

The

Board finds that the inte

(~

a a~,

a low variances

from

the AcD

In

this case there

are n

0

0

~t

nda

ci

l’~it,

Rule 102,

while

merely repeat

a

tt-e s~a

t

y

It

~u,i

a’avertheless

a valid

rule

Of courFe

tIc Bo~d cit n re~usesto grant vari~

ances

from

the \cD

Never hel~1’C,

rot alvays specifically

so

stated, vaniarc’as

y Del.

r

r

e

Ird

ectiy allow

general or specific

‘a

ooec

art

~

us of the

Act to be abr~dgedt

it

o~

1

a

r

er

.rd

Fiip

can

be

shown

From the

57

1

etce Jres~rtc

I

CF

t

a

trot y ant the public,

the

Board finds that

II vic~

C

3

§

(a)

o

Ic Act and Rule 102

of

Chapter 2

througn exriss on ox

ci

c~rs ~taici

unrearortamly interfered

with

enjoyment of life or or.~pe~ty Ihe Board will consider

whether

GE

has shown arbitrary o~

r

reasonable Iardship ao as to

entitle

it

to a vax~ar&celion Rule 102 oil §)(a)~ Because the

compliance

costs are

intertained with the liardahip, the Board

will first

discuss compliance a ternatives

---

CO~LIANCEP

ROGRAM

There

are

several

possible

sources of odor,

including

1.

Animals

2.

Pits

3.

Lagoons

1

and 2

4.

Lagoon

3

5.

Lagoons

4

-

7

6.

Holding ponds

8

and

9

7.

Remote storage

lagoon

8,

Land

application

of animal waste

The variance request is directed at only some of these.

The animals

and

holding

ponds

8

and

9

are apparently

minor

sources

of

odor.

The

compliance programs

are

not

directed

at

alleviating

any

odor

from these

sources,

The remote storage lagoon is described in connection with

the compliance program for the main facility.

There is no

specific request for a variance for it; Petitioner contends

that it has no odor problem; and,

the

facility description is

sketchy.

The Board construes the petition as not requesting

a

variance

for

the

remote

storage

facility0

Lagoon

3,

which

was

used

for

whey

disposal,

is

not

a

part

of

the

hog

waste

system.

Indeed,

it.s

past

use

appears

to

have

been

for

special

waste

disposal,

a

totally

unrelated

business

which

may

have

been

subject

to

Chapters

7 and

9,

Noting

that

GE

contends

there

are

no

more odors from

Lagoon

3,

the

Board

will

deny

this

portion

of

the

variance.

GE

has

equipment

to

either

top spread or

inject

sludge

on

land.

The former usually creates more odor problems.

GE has

indicated

that it knifes in sludge that is

particularly

malodor-

ous rather

than

top

dressing

it.

The Board construes

the

peti-

tion as not

requesting

a

variance

train

the

odor

rules

for

the

land

application

operations

at

areas

remote

from

the

hog

facility.

The petition

appears

to

primarily request a

variance

for

odors emitted from the pits

beneath the

buildings

and

the receiv-

ing lagoons.

There are

several

steps

proposed

or taken which may

alleviate odors.

Some of the following steps are mutually

exclusive

and

others complement

or

overlap as will be discussed

below:

45—33

---

—6—

1.

Reduction in animal population

2.

Aerobic conditions

within

pits

3.

Anaerobic

treatment

in pits

with additives

4.

Anaerobic sludge digester

5.

More frequent pit pumping

a.

GE proposes to pump so:Lids several times per year

b.

The

Agency

proposes daily pumping

6,

No

disposal

of

whey

in

lagoons

7.

Reduction

in

solids

going into

lagoons

8.

Installation

of

machinery

for solids drying

9.

Establishment

of

aerobic

conditions

in

lagoons

10.

Anaerobic

conditions

in

lagoons

with

additives

to

prevent odor

11.

Dredging

and

cleaning

of

lagoons

12.

Abandonment

of

lagoons

The

major

difference

between

the Agency

and

GE

concerns

whether to establish aerobic conditions in the pits and lagoons.

The

Agency

wants installation

of

aeration equipment, while GE

wants

to

add

“Micro-aid~

to

food,

arid

directly

to

pits

and

lagoons.

This

commercial

product

is

supposed

to

allow

odorless

anaerobic decomposition.

At the Agency~surging, GE purchased aeration equipment and

attempted to establish aerobic conditions

in one pit.

The

attempt was abandoned as unsuccessful after 60 days

(R.

39).

The Agency believes the attempt failed because the pit was not

first pumped and cleaned,

On the other

hand,

GE has presented

experts who claim that there

are

no aerobic hog waste systems

in operation

(R.

241, 252,

529,

690).

The Board takes official

notice of

the record in Cantrell

v.

Gaines, PCB 79-254, October

30,

1980.

this hogfacility was successfully operated with aerobic condi-

tions

in pits.

The Agency~scase

largely rests on a

University of Illinois

study in which Micro-aid

and several similar

products were added

to barrels containing

hog waste.

Z~panel judged the odors after

6 weeks.

Micro—aid was

found ineffective in

reducing odor.

However, GE claims that

the product was

not tested long enough

for improvement to show up

(Resp.

Ex.

1,

R.

177,

654)~.

GE estimates

the

cost of

installing

aeration at $78,000 to

$94,000..

This will also

involve

additional electric drops and

considerably

higher

electric

bills,

which

are

not

figured

into

this figure

(R.

29, 34).

GE estimates

the Micro—aid to cost

about

$20,800 during

15 months

(R.

144),

GE

has presented convincing evidence in this case supporting

anaerobic conditions,

The Agency~scase is too weak to persuade

the Board that the anaerobic

system

should be denied a trial,

45—34

---

There

is

an

accumulation

solids throughout the

lagoon

system.

This

has

arisen

from

iwo

ources:

the

whey

which

was

dumped into lagoon 3 and exce.~

s carryover of

solids

from

the

pits.

The former should be al

abed by cessation of whey

dumping;

the

latter by more

r.o

i

~o1ids pumping from the

pits.

GE~soperation is inter

to

ceomplish. solids separation

in the pits.

if excess soiia~ar~allowed to carry over into

the lagoons,

some mechanier

levised to pump them out of

lagoons

1 and

2 for land

o

~

Otherwise it is likely

these lagoons will always

c

u.~ctroblens.

The Board will,

however,

allow GE to attemp

.r ~l

pith

Micro-aid and frequent

pit pumpings.

There is

al

d

~

n

cf

a solids separator

costing $30,000 to

$70,000

P

2

The most ambitious p o~

ud irvolve construction of

an anaerobic sludge digest~

.t

c

lection and use of the gas

generated.

This is esti

tc~d

-a

i

$250,000

to $450,000,

GE at one time was offered

a ~

)00

grant from the U,S.

Depart-

ment of Energy for this pr

je

t

was not undertaken because

of doubts

as

to

whether

ci

o

ç~h Jan

~ould be

recovered to make

the

project economically

f~ctSi~l~

even with the grant

(R.

49,

266)

GE

has

cleaned

lagoon

3.

to be used only for

emergency

which it wants

pumped daily

cleaned

and

filled

in.

GE b~

gradual

degradation

of the

a

past operations; however

dredge or clean the lagoon~

GE has contended

the

more

money

than

it

has.

T

dredging

and

cleaning.

How~

this

in

order

to

reduce

od

expiration

of

the

variance.

he

Agency

wants

1

and

2

cleaned,

verfiows from the

buildings,

It

also wants

3 through

7

to

be

1.~vc~that its

additive

is

causing

~~Lation of solid residues

from

t

isclosed

any plan to

an ttan

3,

cç,rng and cleaning would

cost

I

and

ill

not at this time require

:~ta

find it necessary

to

do

~cptable levels prior to

There is also testimony’

n~rgfloating solids in the

lagoons

(R.

188k.

It

would

o~an ç~uitesimple to skim this

off

the surface for proper dispoan

~L1C

Board will require this,

Hog odor is cyclical in

a

it

tends to be worse in

the

summer and worse when more era al

are present.

The facility is

not now operating at full capaca,

and winter is approaching.

These factors tend

to reduce

1w odor

In

finding

arbitrary or unr’~asonablehardship,

the

Board

must

balance

environmental I r~

aç,ainst compliance

costs.

---

—8—

There is evidence that odors have abated considerably in the

past

year

(R.

112.,

122,

128,

349,

361,

380,

469;

Pet.

Ex,

11).

GE

has

presented financial

data

indicating substantial

losses over recent years.

The

Board

finds

that

it

would

impose

arbitrary or unreasonable

hardship to require

GE to come into

immediate compliance

with

Rule

102

of

Chapter

2 and §9(a)

of

the Act.

A reasonable time

will be

allowed for testing with

Micro-aid.

The evidence indicates

that past

operations had gross

disregard for the Act

and

Board regulations.

This variance is

not intended to have

any retroactive

effect..

This Opinion constitutes

the

Board’s

findings of fact

and

conclusions

of law in this

matter,

ORDER

Petitioner,

Gilt Edge

Farms

Inc.,

is

granted

a

variance

from Section 9(a)

of the Environmental Protection Act

(Act)

and

Rule

102

of

Chapter

2:

Air

Pollution,

subject

to

the

following

conditions:

1.

This

variance

will

expire

December

31,

1982.

2.

This

variance

will

apply

only

to

animal

wastes

at

Petitioner’s hog

facility

situated

in

Section

10,

T27N, R8E of

the

4th PM, Stephenson County.

This

variance will not

apply to

odors

from:

Petitioner’s

remote

storage

lagoon

described

in

the

Opinion;

lagoon

3; holding

ponds

8

ar:d

9;

disposal of cheese

whey;

or land

application

of

hog

wastes.

3.

Petitioner shall

skim

floating

debris

from

its

lagoons weekly

during the term of

this

variance.

4.

Petitioner shall

pump

solids

from

pits

below

buildings

in order

to

prevent

excess

solids

carryover

into

the

lagoons,

and

in

any event

no

less often than the

following schedule:

a.

High

volume

pits

-

twice

per

year

b.

Low

volume

pits

—

annually.

5.

Petitioner

shall

use

an odor—reducing additive in

pits,

lagoons

and

animal

feed

according

to

directions.

45—36

---

6.

Petitioner shall not cause or allow violations of

any applicable provisions of Chapters

7 or

9.

7.

On or before September 1,

1982, Petitioner shall

report to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

concerning the success of

its

odor reduction program.

8.

Within forty—five days of the date of this Order,

Petitioner shall execute

and

forward to the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency,

Variance Section,

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

be

held

in

abeyance

for

any

period

this

matter

is

being

appealed.

The

form

of

the

Certificate

shall

be

as

CERTIFICATION

I,

(We),

___________________________,

having

read

and

fully

understanding

the

Order

in

PCB

81-85,

hereby

accept

that

Order

and

agree

to

be

bound

by

all

of

its

terms

and

SIGNED

TITLE

DATE

IT

IS

SO

Mr.

Goodman

concurred.

I,

Christan

L.

Moffett,

Clerk

of

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board,

hereby

certify

that

the

above

Opinion

and

Order

were

adopted

on

the

7~

day

of

-,

1982

byavoteof

‘/_ô

.

Christan

L.

Mo

,

Clerk

Illinois

Polluti

Control

Board