ILLINOIS 

POLLUTION CONTRCJI~

ROARD

July

12,

1973

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY,

Complainant,

vs.

)

PCB 72—185

SPINNEY RUN FARMS,

)

Resoondent.

SPINNEY RUN FARMS,

Petltioier,

vs.

)

PCB 72—327

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGEIiCY,

Respondent..

Lee

Campbell, Assistant 

Attorney Ceneral for the EPA

Joseoh Hammer and

Mark Beauhien, 

Attorneys for Spinney Run Farms

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE

BOARD 

(by Mr. Henss)

An enforcement action of the Environmental Protection Agency

and a Petition for

Variance filed by Spinney Run Farms were con—

sclihated

for hearing and will be considered together in this

ion.

Epinney Run Farms operates a milk processing and bottling

plant

5 days 

per week on Route

63 north of Libertyville in Lake

County,

Illinois. Equimment at 

the plant includes bulk milk

storage facilities,

pasteurizing and bottling apparatus, cooling

aou~pnent and a waste water treatment plant.

flespondent7s waste water treatment plant consists of holding

tanks, grit chamber, aeriation tank, settling tank, chlorine contact

tank and sludge holding tank.

The treatment plant has a designed

capacity of 15,000 gallons per day for the treatment and disposal

of waste water generated during tile

milk processing operation,

nenoral cleansing of the milk processing plant envlrons, and waste

produced by the plant emo1oyees.

Effluent from the waste treatment

plant is

discharged to 

a community tile and then to a small inlet

the

west bank ot the des Slaines :dive-r.

—

445

—2—

The EPA alleges that Respondent, 

~fl

the operation of its

waste

treatment plant, has caused or allowed water pollution on

an least five specific dates since July 1, 1970 in violation of

Section 12(a) of the Environmental Protection Act; failed to 

meet

minimum conditions as to water quality from July 1, 1970 to

April 16, 1972 in violation of Rule 1.03(a), (h), and Cc) of SViB—1l;

since July 1, 1970 has discharged wastes with a BODç in excess of

30 mg/i, total suspended solids in excess of 35 mg/I (since April 16,

1972 in excess of 37 mg/l), and fecal coliform in excess of 400

per 100 mg. liquid, all in violation of Rule 1.08, paragraphs 10(a)

and 11(b) of SWB—l1 and Rules 404(a) and 405 of tile Waber Pollution

Regulations of Illinois; has substantially failed to complete

removal of settleable solids, floating debris, oil, grease, scum,

sludge solids and coal, odor ahd. turbidity to below obvious levels,

all in violation of Rule 1.08, paragraph 10(b) of SWE—Il. The

Complaint further charges that Respondent failed to obtain recuired

permits before installation of a grit separator in 1971 ir!. violation

of Section 12(b) of the Act; discharged readily settleable solids,

floating debris, odor producing substances havinc visibly greater

color or turbidity than the receiving waters since April 16, 1972

in violation of Rule 403 of the Water Pollution Regulations of

Illinois; from February 4, 1972, failed to provide a properly

certified sewage treatment plant operator in violation of Rule 1.02

of SWB—2; and1 since April 16, 1972, failed to submit comelote

operation reports in violation of Rule 501(a) of the Water Pollution

Regulations.

After the Agency Complaint was filed, Respondent filed its

Petition for Variance. Specifically, the petition asks for variance

from Rules 403, 404(a), 404(c), 405, and 901(a) of the Water Pollution

Regulations of Illinois “until such time as the expanded and improved

facilities are tested, operative and experimental work has been con-

cluded”.

Stipulated exhibits reveal that the present treatment plant

was constructed in 1963 under authority of a Sanitary Water Board

permit. This construction had been preceded by investigations

conducted by the Lake County Health Department, the Illinois

Department of Conservation and the Illinois Department of Public

Health. Correspondence following the construction reveals that

the plant did not perform as expected and continued to be a target

of surveillance activities.

Respondent’s petition states that current hydraulic loading

varies from 1200 to 40,000 gallons pe±~day while the oreanic

loading ranges from 800 to 2,000 BOD5. The reason given for such

fluctuations is that the amount of bulk milk received varies widely

from day to day. In order to correct the overloaded conditions,

Spinney Run Farms will expand the present plant to accomodate a

hydraulic loading of 60,000 gallons per day. This is to be

accomplished by installing new pumps, a new 60,000 gallon aeration

8— 446

—3—

basin with mechanical aerator, a new clarifier with mechanical

sludge removal equipment, a horizontal multiplex filter for

tertiary treatment of the effluent, and aerobic digester and

drying beds, and alteration of the present aeration tank to a

chlorine contact basin. Petitioner estimates the capital invest-

ment for the new facilities to be about $100,000 and the increased

annual operating cost to be about $14,450. Petitioner gave the

following time schedule for bringing the facility into compliance:

a. Preliminary report        

August 15, 1972

b. EPA review and approval     

October 30, 1972

c. Land acquisition          

None Required

d. Financing             

October 1, 1972

e. Final plans, specifications  

September 15, 1972

f. Contract             

October 1, 1972

g. Start construction        

October 15, 1972

H. Complete construction      

December 15, 1972

i. Operate             

December 31, 1972

Testimony during four public hearings on the consolidated

cases indicates that Spinney Run Farms had fallen several months

behind its time schedule at the outset. The preliminary report

was not submitted to the EPA until about October 30, 1972 thereby

creating a need for variance until March 30, 1973 (Nov. 28, R. 26).

Formal documents requesting the longer variance have not been

filed by Petitioner, but we construe Resoondent’s evidence as an

amendment requesting variance to Narch 30, 1973.

Respondent has denied the EPA charges and contends that the

pollution found near Respondent’s discharge point could have been

caused by the nearby Gray’s Lake Sewage treatment plant. The Gray’s

Lake plant discharges 20 times the volume of Spinney Run Farms.

Respondent also contends that “others” added sewage to the community

drain tile before discharge to the Des Plaines River (August 23, R. 69).

Agency exhibits (stipulated) clearly prove the pollution of

the Des Plaines River and effluent violations both at Respondent’s

discharge point and in the community drain tile. Specifically,

we note that on the dates alleged, Respondent’s effluent ranged

from 49 to 378 mg/i for BOD (Standard is 30 mg/l), from 30 to

430 mg/l for total suspende~solids (current Standard is 37 mg/l)

and from 4,200 to 200,000 per 100 ml. for fecai coilform (Standard

is 400 per 100 ml.). Agency photographs substantiate the charges

regarding the general appearance of the effluent at Respondents

discharge point and at the point where the community drain tile

discharges to the River. The impact of the effluent on the Des

Plaines River is apparent in the analysis of samples taken on

June 22, 1971:

—

447

—4—

Point 1      

Point 2      

Point 3

(30 feet    

(Sample     

(30 ft.

Upstream   

of Discharge  

Downstream

of Discharge   

Effluent)   

of Discharge

pH

8.7

6.5

8.0

Total Suspended

Solids       

68 mg/l     

200 mg/i    

125 rng/l

BOD

6 mg/l     

60 mg/i    

70 mg/i

Fecal Coliform   

6000/100 ml. 600,000/100 ml. 28,000/100 ml

However, the Agency evidence (August 14, 1972 investigation)

substantiates Respondent’s claim that additional material not from

Respondent’s plant enters the community field tile prior to discharge

to the Des Plaines River. Laboratory analyses revealed the following:

Point 1           

Point 2

(weir overflow   

(effluent in community

at Respondent’s    

tile at point of

treatment     

discharge to Des

plant       

Plaines River

pH

7.3

7.4

Total Suspended

Solids       

350 mg/i        

190 mg/i

BOD

460 mg/i        

310 mg/i

Fecal Coliform   

48,000/100 ml.     

300,000/1000 ml.

The large increase in fecal coiiform indicates that others had connected

to the tile and were discharging household waste. It appears that

Spinney Run Farms is in violation of 

the

effluent standard and is

joined by “others” in the area in polluting the Des Plaines River.

Agency records show no permit application having been filed

by Respondent since 1963. A grit separator was installed on March 14,

1971 without an Agency permit (October 26, H. 51).

Respondent argues

that the device was installed to reduce downtime of the pump and not

as a pollution control device,

We are not convinced that this was

its sole use. Clearly, the intent was to reduce the amount of grit

or solids reaching a particular section of 

the plant. Although

installation

of the grit separator would reduce pump erosion, the

device also 

reduced the amount of solids escaping with

Respondent’s

effluent.

This would qualify it as a pollution control device which

requires an Agency permit.

The EPA introduced a number cf Respondent’s operating reports

upon which the Agency had written

‘ii”

or

“Inc.

An Agency witness

testified

that 

this notation is made

when 

the EPA believes e report

lacks 

certain required data,

Such a report is cLassified as

3 —448

—5—

incomplete. Notations on Resoondent’s reports show that residual

chlorine data were missing from some reports and suspended solids

data were missing from all reports. The record is not clear whether

the 12 reports submitted are the total of Respondent’s reports for

1972 or whether only a selected few were presented. Reports sub-

mitt~dto the Agency under Rule 501(a) of the Water Regulations

require the use of Technical Policy 20—24 (revised July 1971) for

guidelines in the submission of required data and information.

Based on desicrned plant caoacity, certain data may he required on

a daily, weekly, or twice weekly schedule. Table 2 of the Technical

Policy indicates that Respondent was required to submit both weekly

and twice weekly reports.

Although Sninney Hun was reguired to submit suspended solids

data, there is no place on the EPA form designated for the entry

of such information. 

The

EPA witness testified that 

when

a report

is received witliout necessary data, normal policy dictates the

sending of a postcard advising the submitter that the report was

incomplete.

The postcard does not detail what portion of the report

was incomalete. The submitter then must call the appropriate

Agency office to determine what caused the report to he classified

incomplete. Here, neither the form nor the postcard referred to

the

need for suspended solids data. Respondent acknowledged

recolving such Agency nostcards, but did not contact the Agency to

determine

why the 

reports were labeled incomplete because ‘confused

to

who to contact

(October 26, H. 47)

Such confusion is understandable where government procedures

and forms are not designed to be of assistance.

We find that

Soinney Run Farms failed to provide the information required by

the

Regulations; 

hut because of the inadequacy of the forms and

notice, no penalty will be imposed for that violation. We suggest

that 

the

Agency find a better way of notifying persons of the

stiortcomings of their reports.

The Agency did not offer evidence of Respondent’s failure

to employ a properly certified treatment plant operator. Therefore,

we dismiss that portion 

of the Complaint.

Nespondent’ s President and General Manager, Raymond Alderman,

testified that denial of a variance would work a hardship on his

company and 

many people. Spinney

Run Farms is said to be the only

remaining bulk milk processor in Lake County. Alderman testified

that about 64 plant employees, 118 farmers who supply the bulk

milk, 

and

16 vendors and 

contract haulers would be affected.

Re-

spondent~sgross sales for the fi:rst 8 months of 1972 were in excess

of $4 million. Local farmers were paid nearly $3 million for bulk

milk during this period. Purchases by Respondent in the 

community

during the period were about ~l75,000. Total plant worth excluding

—

449

—C—

land is ~S00,000.

Respondent indicatat that the

cost 

of prowidieg

new waste treatment 

equipment

did not. present a serious problem

for the company.

In designing

the expansion of 

Spiuncy Run’s treatment last,

consideration has apparently been given to a planned expansion by

the North Shore Sanitary District of the Gurnee

plant. 

A consulting

engineer,

who testified 

on behalf of Spinney RUn,

said that after

plant

modification, 

Respondent’s effluent

would quauilw for 

dia~

charge into a Gurnee interceotor sewer

planned to cross Epinney

Run Farms.

William Byers, General Manager and Chief Engineer for

the NSSD, verified thit such an interceptor sewer was currently

planned and taut in his opiniLn, ~espondent~

a effluent would be

of acceptable quality after installation

of the now 

waste treatment

equipment. The Gurnee project is

scheduled for 

coimletion by

December 31,

1974. 

The consulting engineer felt that the Spinney

Run exeansion would be 

sufficient to meet only the current standards

and not 

any more stringent than those currently repuired.

approve the ultimate goal of discharging the Spieney Run Farm

effluent to tno Gurnee interceritor sewer,

Sninney Run Farms shall

at an early Nate

contact officials

tee

REdLY

Gurnmm

plant in

effoot to e,n~edite cor rac clor of 1 Ls s~~er l~~c tc c

551) i~ tot

ceptor sewe:c line leading to the Gurnee clint.

The evidence

is

sufficient

for •the grant of a variance from

the Psi a sr~cified, ewce

for Ru~S 901(a) ~c

04(cj

‘U~

901 (a) merely requires Resnomdc-nt to ohtain a construction

je:mit

before modifying its treatment elant.

Re see no reason to exclune

Resooridest from.

this reeuirement 

and therefore, deny this eortion

of the variance petition. 

Rule 404(c) applies to effluent cuality

from sources 

unlike Spinney Run Farms or compliance dates beyond

the Match 30, 1973 date recuestod by 

Petitioner. We

find tnrs

~ort_on of tm. 

~ari~nce

rc~ue~t

to th

1~COOflj

r~t~ao~  

without prejudice.

The variance exoiros March 30, 1973,

the

nroiecccd deaalir~ rot co~cie~ior of tee

tre

tmert tlanL excursion

Respondent

aa~ucLqeci to

have 

violated all Rules and Regu~

lateons cited in the Agency Coetelaint excent for that portion

oertainincj to ocorator certification,

For thee~ violations a

monetary penalty in the amount of :~2000 shall be imnosed.

Re~

s~underit

5Cc

±1

c es~ ann ~   

fr~

~ ci luti o v~elet~ons

foliov

g ~xo~ra c~ c f m c za:~~

I o~ nlv nit

ti a

permit testing, moni boring and reeorten~~ reeui:em ants,

8—450

—7—

ORDER

It is 

the Order of the Board that:

1. Spinney Run Farms shall pay to the State of

Illinois by August 10, 1973 the sum of $2,000

as a penalty for the violations found in this

proceeding. Penalty 

payment by

certified

check

or money order payable to tile State of

Illinois 

shall

be made to: Fiscal Services

Division, Illinois EPA, 2200 Churchill Road,

Springfield, Illinois 62706.

2. Spinney RUn Farms is granted

variance from

Rules 403, 404(a) and 405

of the Water Pollution

Rules and Regulations of Illinois

from October 30,

1972 until March 30, 1973 for the operation of

its waste water

treatment plant, but shall comply

wits emit

recuirements and any testing, monitoring,

and re~orting remuirements

for experimental

waste

water treatment.

I, Christan P. Moffett, Clerk of the

Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify the

above Opinion and Order was adopted

this

~~day

of July, 1973

by a vote of 

to 0

8—451