Washington Beef in Toppenish will pay a $750,000 civil penalty as part of an agreement with the EPA related to alleged violations of its permit for discharges of treated waste water used in its processing plant.
But company officials say construction of $3 million in upgrades to the water treatment system at the facility that is also part of the agreement would have begun years before if the EPA had set new discharge permit limits then.
Washington Beef and the U.S. Department of Justice both issued announcements May 4, about the agreement that resolved enforcement action of the federal Clean Water Act by the EPA.
Rick Stott, Executive Vice President, said Washington Beef had plans to upgrade the water treatment system “well in advance of the threat of enforcement action.”
He said the plant operated on a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit that had expired in 1998, and which had been administratively extended by EPA.
The permit set limits on what the Clean Water Act considered pollutants in water discharged by the plant.
Stott said when Washington Beef was sold to Agri Beef in 2003, the company immediately contacted EPA in an effort to find out what the new permit limits would be, so that the wastewater treatment system could be upgraded to be in compliance. 
It took EPA from that time until Feb. 2010 to establish the new limits.
Stott said there were “a variety of issues” that slowed the process, such as technical errors, changes in permit levels, and agency understaffing issues.
All told, Washington Beef submitted three different permit applications, he said.
“I have a whole notebook full of notes and conversations (with EPA),” said Stott.
EPA spokesman Jeff Philip said re-applying for the permit delayed the process of permit renewal.
He said the agency tried to accommodate the Washington Beef applications. He said there were “numerous” applications submitted, but did not specify a number other than that there were “at least three.”
What prompted the $750,000 civil penalty was the manner in which the treated waste water from the plant was managed, according to Stott.    
He said the Yakama Nation, the Wapato Irrigation District, and Washington Beef cooperated in “an innovative constructed wetlands system” in which treated wastewater was used for irrigation purposes.
He said EPA never formally authorized the system, but “were clearly aware of it,” had seen the system in operation, had made suggestions to improve its effectiveness, and had posted it on the agency web site.
Washington Beef actively petitioned EPA to incorporate the cooperative waste water management agreement into new permit standards, Stott said.
Philip said he did not know whether or not the Washington Beef waste water management system had been posted on the agency web site.
Stott maintains that the treated waste water “had no detrimental water-quality impacts to either Wanity Slough or the irrigation system,” and that the water was for the beneficial use of local farmers.
He also acknowledges that discharge of the treated water into the irrigation canal was not included in the company’s NPDES permit.
Stott said the company agreed to pay the penalty to avoid costly, drawn-out litigation and to move ahead with construction of upgrades to its water treatment system.
The upgrades include a chlorination and de-chlorination system, an addition to the ultra-violet disinfection system, a new dissolved air flotation device, a disk filtration system, and a second sequential batch reactor.
A press release from the U.S. Department of Justice said Washington Beef has obtained a permit for all its discharges and is meeting its permit limits.
“We are pleased this was resolved,” Stott said.