ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

September 26, 1973

CITY OF ST. CHARLES

)

and

)

SWIFT AND COMPANY

)

v.

)

PCB 73-247

)

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

)

Mr. Richard J. Kissel and Mr. Alvin Catella appeared on behalf of

City of St. Charles and Swift and Company;

Mr. John B. Slattery, Assistant Attorney General, appeared on behalf

of Environmental Protection Agency.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Dumelle):

Petition was filed June 14, 1973 by the City o:E St. Charles

(tlCityU) and Swift and Company (“Swift”) for variance from varsious

water pollution regulations.

The Agency filed a recommendation on July 27, 1973 and essentially

recommended denial. On August 22, 1973, a supplemental recommendation

was filed recommending a grant subject to certain conditions. Public

hearing was held on August 27, 1973 in St. Charles.

The City has a sewage treatment plant which for the 15-month

period from January 1, 1972 to March 31, 1973 has been averaging

21 mg/l BOD5 and 73 mg/l suspended solids. The relevant standard,

Rule 404(b), is 20 mg/i BOD5 and 25 mg/l suspended solids effective

at least as early as July 1, 1972. Variance is requested from this

Rule until a plant expansion can be completed by August 15, 1974.

Swift has a new dry sausage plant under construction in St. Charles.

The plant will employ 262 persons with an annual payroll of $3,525,000

and will cost $16,000,000. It will begin operations about October 29,

1973 and over a 12-week period will take over processing now housed

in an oH, obsolete plant in Chicago. Swift 

was

denied an operating

permit by the Agency on March 30, 173 because the St. Charles plant

was near its design capacity. The Agency :interprets their variance

request as being from Rules 901 and 902.

In considering the City’s variance, it is useful to treat it as

separate and distinct from Swift. The effect of the 

additional load

from Swift of initially 170,000 gpd. 

with

pretreatment is stated by

9

— 343

-2-

the City’s consulting engineer, Mr. Bernard G. Bosch, to be

“minimal” (R. 26). We then have to consider whether the City of

St. Charles, with a suspended solids discharge almost 200 over

a July 1, 1972 standard, has tried to rectify its problem in good

faith or has caused its problem to come into being by delay.

The verified petiti.on recites the delay occasioned the City

by the Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission between April, 1971

and August, 1972. This is a 16-month period coming at a significant

point in the development of expansion plans. While we give this

argument some weight, we do point out that the Board cannot grant

to NIPC the power to alter deadlines of the Board. We would urge

that wastewater treatment planning be kept current for all

communities in order that planning itself not be an excuse for continued

pollution. Further, NIPC would be the first to say that its recommenda-

tions are not binding upon the Federal government as it decides to

issue construction grants. There are actual cases, as NIPC knows, in

which NIPC recommendations have not been followed by the Federal

government. Thus, we might say ~Eff~tSt. Charles should have followed

an independent course and requested Federal funds without NIPC. But

the appeals from this course would probably have consumed as much time.

St. Charles now has the Federal grant of $1,205,925 and is under

construction.

Thus, the problem is fast on its way to solution. Phase I of

the plant expansion is due to be completed November 1, 1973 (R. 17,

19). Phase II, which will raise the plant capacity from 4.0 MCD to

8.0 MCD will be done by April 1, 1975, but the critical new final

tanks will be done August 15, 1974.

We grant the variance to the City until August 15, 1974 allowing

them to discharge 25 mg/l BODE (instead of 20) and 37 mg/i suspended

solids (instead of 25) until that date to be computed in a manner as

specified in Rule 404(h). The deposition of Edward Marek of the

Agency (August 2, 1973) states that no adverse effects have been

observed, but also that high river flows have prevented sampling.

We do not require the hiring of an additional sewage treatment

operator because that is dependent upon the supply of operators. If the

plant is understaffed and hence, operated incorrectly, then the Agency

has a remedy in an enforcement action if it chooses. We also do not

require the extra filter because the demonstration filter can be used

in an emergency.

As to Swift, the Agency would require pretreatment of flows and

a nocturnal discharge of much of it. Since Swift agrees, we will

require this. We do not hold with the Agency on not permitting a

Swift discharge beyond 170,000 gpd., if Phase I is not done. To do

so would jeopardize the orderly startup of this new food processing

plant. While no evidence appears in the record, the additional 200,000

gpd. at full Swift flow should not make a major difference on an

effluent already at 4 MGD and using by then improved final tanks. We

9— 344

-3-

grant the variance to Swift from Rules 901 and 902,

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusiofls

of law of the Board.

ORDER

1. Variance is granted to the City of St. Charles from Rule 404(h)

until August 15, 1974 to discharge BOD5 at up to 25 mg/i and

suspended solids at up to 37mg/i computed as in Rule 404(h).

2. The construction and operation of the final tanks of Phase II

shall be the first portion implemented by the City and shall be

completed by August 15, 1974.

3. Polymers shall be added to the clarifying tanks and/or activated

carbon shall be added to the aeration tanks by the City as con-

sidered necessary by the Agency to meet the BUD5 or suspended

solids limits set in #1 above.

4. A performance bond of $5,000 is required of the City to insure

construction of the equipment referred to in #2 above.

5. Variance is granted to Swift and Company from Rules 901 and 902

to permit it to connect its new dry sausage plant to the St.

Charles sewer system.

6. Maximum flow to be discharged by Swift shall be 370,000 gpd.pre-

treated to not more than 150 mg/i BOD5, 150 mg/i suspended

solids, and SO mg/i of oil; all based upon 2~-hour,30 day

average composite sampling.

7.  Fifty-four percent or more of Swift’s wastewater shall be dis-

charged between 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.

8.  i~:nthly reports of the volume, time of flow and strength of

~~tewater in sufficient detail to check difference to the condi-

~cns of this Order shall be filed with the Agency and the City

by Swift no later than the 20th day of the month following each

calendar month after November, 1973 for the duration of the

variance.

9. A performance bond in the amount of $20,000 is required of Swift

to insure construction of the pretreatment equipment required

to meet #6 above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board,

certify that the abo e Opinion and Order was adopted by the Board on

the

day of 

_______________,

1973, by a vote of ~  

to C)

—

345