ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

March

28,

1974

WAREHAM’S DAIRY, A Division Of

Holland Ice Cream And Custard

Company,

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 74-45

ENVIROUMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent,

Ervin Caldemeyer, Vice President and Treasurer,

on behalf of

Petitioner;

John H.

Rein, Attorney,

on behalf of Environmental Protection

Agency.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Dr. Odell)

The Petitioner, Holland Ice Cream and Custard Company

(now Holland Dairies,

Inc.)

owns substantially all of the out-

standing common stock of Wareham’s Dairy,

Inc., which processes

dairy products near Taylorville,

Illinois.

On January 25,

1974,

the Illinois Pollution Control Board

(thereinafter Board)

received

a petition for variance In which the Petitioner seeks an extension

of time to comply with the Board’s Order in Environmental Protection

Agency v.

Holland Ice Cream and Custard Company, PCB 71—319

(March

29, 1973), and, more specifically, seeks an extension of time to

complete corrections to its spray irrigation treatment System at

its Wareham Dairy plant adjacent to Taylorville,

Illinois.

Prior to February

3,

1972, wastes from Petitioner’s Wareham

Dairy plant were discharged into a holding tank and then to extended

aeration and settling tanks In which oxidation and settling occurred.

Due to

the inadequacies of this system of treating Petitioner’s

wastes,

the Board found on February 3,

1972,

that Petitioner was in

violation of Section 12(a)

of the Illinois Environmental Protection

Act

(Act)

and portions of Sanitary Water Board Rules and Regulations

Number Six

(SWB-6)

for failing to meet color and turbidity standards

and for failing to operate its treatment facilities

at design

efficiency.

Paragraph

3 of the Board’s Order stated that “Holland

shall submit to the Board and to

the Agency a firm program for

achieving compliance with all applicable regulations respecting its

discharge of liquid wastes.

Such a program shall provide for com-

pliance in the shortest practicable time.”

After considerable

delay and repeated interchange with the Environmental Protection

Agency (hereinafter Agency)

during the next year,

a program was

developed to construct an irrigation field of six 1.5—acre plots

designed to be used separately on

a six—day rotating basis. The

I

1

—

709

---

—2--

average design

flow is

30,000 gallons per day, utilizing pumps

designed to pump 125 gallons per minute with nozzels, each dis-

bursing 62.5 gallons per minute at

80 pounds pressure to the

farthest point in the irrigation field.

After the compliance program was developed by Petitioner

in

consultation with the Agency,

the Board ordered on March

29,

1973,

(PCB 71—319) Petitioner to comply with the following timetable:

“Date by which contracts

are to be awarded

30 days after Agency

permit for installation

of the system is

issued.

Start of

construction

.

.

.

15 days after contracts

are awarded.

Completion of con-

struction

4 months after construction

is started.

Start of full operation

.

.

1 week after construction

is completed.”

Subsequent events which relate to the present petition for

variance are summarized below from

the

Agency’s Recommendation

that was received by the Board on March

5,

1974.

The Agency

issued to Petitioner on May 25,

1973, permit ~l973—EA—l055

for

construction and operation of

a spray irrigation facility to

control water pollution, and approved his Project Completion

Schedule, Certificate #1973—194—PCS,

on August 20,

1973.

The

spray irrigation facility started operation on November 16,

1973,

but the submersible pumps did not operate at required design

pressure and a water problem developed in one spray field because

of

a broken drain tile.

During

late

December,

1973,

and early

January, 1974,

further difficulties were encountered, including

flooding of five of the six spray irrigation fields and freezing

of the spray irrigation facility, which resulted in pollution

of the Flat Branch of the South Fork Sangamon River.

On January

9,

1974, Petitioner diverted its plant wastes back to its extended

aeration basin to abate further pollutional discharges until the

spray irrigation facility could be rehabilitated.

On January 15,

1974, Petitioner notified its Agency by letter of

“the following

steps being taken to rectify the problems with its spray irrigation

system:

(a)

The contractor will repair and/or replace,

if necessary,

the automatic control valve on January 14,

1974, and

have it back in operation by January

18,

1974.

(b)

Only those irrigation fields not covered by water will

be used.

(c)

The existing levee will be raised three feet.

fl

—

/10

---

—3—

(d)

The field

tile causing infiltration into the field

will be located and its flow diverted around the

field.

(e)

Reseed in the Soring,

if

necessary,

to obtain grass

cover.”

The Petitioner stated that the new spray irrigation facilities cost

approximately $75,000

to January 25,

1974, when this petition for

variance was filed.

The Agency believes that Petitioner’s plan to temporarily

divert its plant wastes back to the previously abandoned extended

aeration treatment system

is the “most logical and practical short-

term approach”

(even though the effluent produced is not entirely

satisfactory)

,

while Petitioner’s spray irrigation system is

promptly rehabilitated to

fully meet applicable standards.

“The Agency believes that Petitioner’s requested variance

would not have a prolonged adverse environmental impact on the

receiving stream.”

However,

they stated that care should be taken

to avoid a possible odor nuisance problem during warm weather by

lime application or other alternatives.

The Agency believes that Petitioner

~~a)“has acted dili-

gently in attempting to comply with the Board’s past Orders and the

applicable Rules and Regulations” and

(b)

“has and will continue

to act diligently in solving its present problems with its spray

irrigation system.”

The Agency recommended that this petition

for variance be granted, with a timetable suggested by Petitioner,

but with certain conditions, including

a maximum time limit of

September 30,

1974,

for completion.

The Board concurs

in this

aoproach, and the following Order is written accordingly.

ORDER

The Illinois Pollution Control Board hereby grants

Petitioner

a variance from Section 12(a)

of the Environmental

Protection Act to rehabilitate its spray irrigation treatment

system according to the following time schedule and subject to

the other conditions specified below:

(1)

Petitioner shall take any and all measures which

would assure completion

of improvements

in its spray irrigation

treatment system by the earliest practicable date, but no

later

than September 30,

1974, with the following progress datelines:

(a)

Date by which plan to bring

Petitioner into Compliance

with Act and applicable Rules

and Regulations submitted to

Agency

65 days,

if possible,

after this petition

for variance was sub-

mitted by Petitioner,

but not later

than

April 15, l974~

—

711

---

—4—

(b)

Completion of construction

and start of full operation

of rehabilitated system

.

.

.

.

120 days aftE~rapproval

by Agency.

(2)

In the operation of its extended aeration sy~itemduring

the interim period, Petitioner shall undertake all measures nec-

essary to minimize environmental harm, including the apolication of

lime or other feasible alternatives to prevent the occurrence of an

odor nuisance during the summer months.

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

Board, hereby certify tha

the above Opinion and Order was adopted

on the

~.3

“day of

ft~

,

1974, by a vote of

~

to 0

QL~,ri

~4J~

Christan L. M~tt.

Clerk

11—