ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
June 21, 1973
DUQUOIN PACKING COMPANY,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 73—128
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Seaman):
Petitioner, DuQuoin Packing Company, a meat packer, is
located in DuQuoin, County of Perry, Illinois. Petitioner
seeks a variance from compliance dates set forth in a Project
Completion Schedule (PCS) submitted by Petitioner and approved
by the Agency. Petitioner also seeks a variance from the
expiration date of its Agency-approved Construction Permit for
improvements to their existing treatment facilities. The
specific modifications in the PCS (Certification #1973—38-PCS)
which Petitioner requests are as follows:
Dates when the following are Currently Applicable Modifications
to be completed:
Program
Sought
Financing Arranged
No financing to be May 1, 1974
arranged
Contracts Awarded
September 1, 1972
May 15, 1974
Start of Construction
September 11, 1972 May 30, 1974
Completion of Construction June 11, 1973
December 15, 1974
Start of Full Operation
June 30, 1973
December 31, 1974
Expiration of Construction August 14, 1973
August 14, 1974
Permit (#1972—EB—1003)
Li
—2—
Thus, Petitioner seeks to delay the start of full opera-
tion of its new treatment facilities from June 30, 1973 to
December 31, 1974, a period of eighteen (18) months.
The DuQuoin Packing Company is a full line meat packer
engaged in butchering and processing hogs and cattle.
Employment at present is 331; prior to a 5-1/2 month strike
which began in September, 1971, employment had been as high
as 475. Total employee economic impact is about $3,500,000
per year in a community of about 7,000 population.
Wastewater generated by Petitioner’s meat packing opera-
tions is jointly treated by an existing lagoon-spray irriga-
tion system owned and operated by Petitioner and by the City
of DuQuoin sewage treatment plant. The relative proportion of
wastewater treated by Petitioner’s system in relationship to
that discharged into the City’s system is allegedly a function
of the moisture content of the receiving soil in Petitioner’s
system.
The Agency has determined that the City sewage treatment
facility, a trickling filter plant, is hydraulically and or-
ganically overloaded. Unchlorinated plant effluent is dis-
charged to Reese Creek, an intermittent stream. Recent Agency
sampling and flow measurements from the City’s Monthly Opera-
tion Reports indicate that the plant effluent is not in com-
pliance with Rules 404(b) and 405.
On September 11, 1970, the Agency notified the City of
DuQuoin that future installation of sanitary sewer extensions
would be prohibited until adequate wastewater treatment is
provided. To date, this sewer ban is still in effect. On
April 3, 1973, the Agency issued Construction Permit
#l974-AB-655, for proposed upgrading of the City’s facility.
The application for permit, received by the Agency on March
15, 1973, indicated that domestic waste would comprise 100 of
future plant loading. Consequently, the proposed upgraded
facilities have not been designed to accomodate the waste load
presently being generaged by the Petitioner.
The Agency’s surveillance Section has reported that poor
effluent quality and raw sewage bypassing at the City treatment
facility caused obvious degradation of Reese Creek. A May 30,
1973 memo from the Big Muddy Sub-Unit Surveillance Section
indicated that deterioration of Reese Creek was evidence over
a 6-mile stretch below the treatment plant outfall. The Agency
has noted that the Petitioner’s effluent is a prime factor
contributing to the City’s poor quality effluent.
—3—
Petitioner indicates that it hired a professional
engineer with experience in the treatment of meat packing
wastewater in 1971 and that thereafter conferences were
held with City and Agency officials in an attempt to solve
its problems. Construction plans and specifications for a
“closed cycle lagoon
—
no discharge
—
spray irrigation
system” were submitted by Petitioner to the Agency on May
25, 1972. After some modification and supplementation, the
Agency issued a Construction Permit (#1972—EB-1003) on
August 4, 1972. Petitioner also filed its PCS with the
Agency on July 26, 1972. Relevant compliance dates have been
set out above. The Agency approved Petitioner’s PCS on
January 31, 1973.
Petitioner alleges that on September 15, 1971, its bar-
gaining unit employees went out on strike demanding wage
increases and benefits in excess of federal guidelines.
Petitioner further alleges that this strike did not end
until February 25, 1972. It is Petitioner’s contention
that the aforementioned strike is the cause of its problems
regarding the financing of its proposed treatment facility.
Allegedly, Petitioner’s earnings for 1972 (because of the
strike) were nil, and its lender will not allow additional
borrowing until adequate earnings are demonstrated. Also,
Petitioner claims that funds cannot be borrowed from other
lenders (SBA, Industrial Revenue Bonds, banks, private lenders)
until a present debt is retired. Petitioner approximates that
the cost of the proposed facilities would amount to $240,000.
Petitioner believes that an adequate earnings level will be
re-established during 1973 and that the necessary funds could
then be borrowed by May 1, 1974.
Petitioner alleges that a denial of its request and
requiring it to adhere to its original schedule would
constitute an arbitrary and unreasonable hardship since
adherence to the original schedule when funds cannot be
borrowed would reduce working capital and endanger Petitioner’s
ability to do business.
To date, Petitioner has invested toward the completion of
the proposed facility approximately $41,000 for professional
services, engineering, soil testing, topographical mapping
and site preparation.
While we do not feel that Petitioner has exercised the
diligence or foresight that it might have, this Board is dis-
posed to grant a one year extension of the operation date of the
proposed facility. Under these particular circumstances, we
believe that the hardship to Petitioner, its employees and the
local economy justify such an extension. However, we caution
Petitioner that the harm it is causing shall not be permitted
indefinitely.
—4—
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and
conclusions of law of the Board.
IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that:
1. Petitioner, DuQuoin Packing Company, is hereby
granted permission to amend DuQuoin PCS, Log #PCS 703-72,
Certificate #1973—38—PCS, Section 13, Part D to reflect a
one year extension to the following progress dates:
(a) Financing Arranged
(b) Contracts Awarded
(c) Start of Construction
(d) Completion of Construction
(e) Start of Full Operation.
2. That Petitioner is granted an extension of the
expiration date on DuQuoin Packing Company
-
(DuQuoin)
-
Improvement to Existing Waste Treatment Facilities, Log
#1314—72, Permit #1972—EB—l003, issued August 14, 1972, from
August 14, 1973 to June 21, 1974, subject to further extension
to August 14, 1974.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, certify that the above Opinion and Order was adopted by
the Bo rd on the
Q/~
day of ~
,
1973, by a vote
of__ to C
.
