Judge grants injunction to halt odors from firm's tanks

By Diane Graff of the Daily Times staff
Friday, August 10, 2007 1:00 PM CDT

A Dane County judge has granted a preliminary injunction to halt/reduce emissions from United Liquid Waste Recycling Inc. located north of Watertown on state Highway 26.

The judge ordered the liquid waste recycling firm to take steps satisfactory to the state Department of Natural Resources to stop/reduce emissions of objectionable odors in connection with its liquid waste operations, specifically the tanks used to store or treat liquid wastes at its main facility in the town of Clyman and on the fields on which it spreads the liquid wastes in Dodge and Columbia counties.

Dane County Circuit Court Judge Angela Bartel signed the order July 26.

DNR attorney Robin Nefler explained at a public hearing Thursday the court ruling is separate from the permit reissuance request.

The DNR has sent a letter to the owners of United Liquid Waste seeking ways to eliminate the odors. The company has until Aug. 17 to respond to the state officials, Nefler said.

ADVERTISEMENT

The order states, “this court retains jurisdiction to grant more specific preliminary injunctive relief as appropriate.”

The order is the result of an environmental enforcement action brought by the state seeking forfeitures and relief for United Liquid Waste Recycling violations of its water pollution discharge elimination system permit and state laws governing the management of liquid wastes at sites in the two counties.

At a hearing July 9, three citizens testified and 23 affidavits of citizen witnesses were presented to the court, along with testimony from Daniel Heim, wastewater specialist with the DNR.

Testifying on behalf of United Liquid Waste Recycling was a part-time and a regular employee of air quality of the DNR, Randy Wirtz, a professional environmental engineer who does consulting work on the lagoon project for United, and Steve Hoffmann, employed by United as its environmental compliance manager.

According to the court document, United has worked with DNR on reducing its emissions since 2002. But the objectionable odors increased in 2006 and 2007 resulting in a substantial increase of citizen complaints.

“United does not deny the state's allegation that it emits objectionable odors, rather it attacks the sufficiency of the evidence of the nature, source and quality of the odor and the sufficiency of an official investigation by the DNR,” the document states. “United has failed to show that it has done all that DNR has reasonably requested that it do in order to abate the ongoing odor problems generated by its waste recycling business.”

The court ordered the company to work with DNR officials to solve the odor problems.