ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February
7,
1985
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PRQTECTION AGENCY,
Complainant,
)
v.
)
PCB 84~-79
)
RUSSELL G, WAKE,
)
Respondent.
MR. ALLEN SAMELSO~,ASSISTANTATTORNEY GENERAL,
At~I?EAREt) ON
BEHALI~OF TH! COM~L&tN/~NT.
OPINION A~DORDER O~THE BOARD
(by J. Theodore Meyer):
This matter.comes before the Board on
a June 2O~ 1~984
com~latht
filed
by
the
Illinois Envi,~onmentalProte~tionAgency
(Agency)
which
alleged
that,
intermittenti~y,.
from
approximately
June,
1982
until
June
ZIl,
1984,
the Respondent
improperly
operated his livestock management facility
in violation
of
35
Ill. Mm, Code 304.106
(offensive discharges),. 304~,l20~(c)
~deoxy~enating wastes a~dsuspended solid~a), 302.203
~urinatur~1
sludge), 302.212(a)
4ammoiiia nAtro~en),5~l.403(b)
(surface
runotf
containment), ~Ol,402(c) (livestock ~dor;abatement) and
in
viol~tion of Section
9 and subsections 12(a)
and 12(d)
of
the
Illinois Environmental Protection Act
(Act),
A
hearing
was
held
on
November
15,
19844
TF~e Respondeflt
elected
not
to
be
presen~t tiaving
entered
into
a
pronosed
settlement
agreement
r~soiving
the
violations
apparently
to
hi~
satisfaction,
At
h~ring,
the
Con~piainant
sum ar:Irrd
the
proposed
settlement
and
a
properly
signed
copy
of
the
Stipu1ati~n
and
Proposal
for 3ett1er~ien~
was
incorporated
iota
t~e
record.
The
Resppndent,
Mr.
P~us~fl
G.
Wake
(Wake
kept
and
raised
livestock, specificaHy swine, on property ad~jacent
to the
Village
of Clear L~kein Sangamon County, Illinois,
This
facility eon~ti~utaa~ new
livestock
management
facility within
the. meaning o~35 Iii. Mm. Code 501.101 et ~
(Agriculture
Related ~o1lution).
An unnamed ~tream
orT~inates
at’ ~he east
side o~~he
Wake
facflity which is
a tributary to
Spring Creek,
The Complaint
contain~five counts.
•
The
first
two counts
allege that Respondent ~l.~o~edor
caused the discharge
of
effluent from his facility
~hich
was of unnatural
color and
tt~rbidity
in violation of Section 12~.a) of
the Act and Sections
304.106 and 302.203 of the WaLar
~ollution
l~egu1at~.cns.
ThQ
effluent
~as
a1~o)
a11~ed to
Coi~t1n
five d
h1cr?~n~ica1oxygen
62.503
demand
(BOD)
in excess of
50
~ç/I
and suspended solids
(SS) in
excess of 60 ~g/l.
Effluents, such~as this one,
with
dilution
ratios of less than five to one may not contain
more
than 10 i~g/1
BOD and
12
mgI1 55,
35
111. Adm. Code 304,120(c),
l~
addition,
the effluent exceeded the am~nonianitrogen li~ita?ions
o~f
15 7itg/1
contained in Section 302,2l~(a).
The third count charge~Res~onden~
with
failing to prevent
excessive outside surface runoff waters and with failing to
adequately direct runoff to an appropriate
disposal, holding or
storage area
in violation of Section 501.403(b).
As a result
contaminants were allegedly deposited so ~s to ~eate
a water
pollution hazard
in violation of subsections 12(a)
and 12(d)
of
the Act.
The fourth count alleged that Respondent had discharged
odors and other contaminants in sufficient quantities ah~dof such
characteristics and duration so as to unreasonably interfere with
the enjoyment of life or property
i~
vio1~tionof Section
9 of
the Act,
Fir~al1y. Respondent al1eg~d1y~op~Tated
th~faci1i~tywithin
50 yards
of
populat~dresideTitial a’re~and f~i1edto practic~
adequate odor control methods as~reqt1iredby ~Sect4on50~,402(c),
The proposed settlement agreement p~ovjdesthat the
Respondent admits the
violations alleged.
It
ts stfpulateo that
Respondent has terminated the use of this property~asa livestock
m~nagementfacility md
thus has ceased and desisted from any
further violations.
The Respondent also ~agrees~thatno livestock
management facility will
be established on this property
in the
future unless:
1) adequate and ~effective odor and water
gollution control meaeures are implemented and
2) the Agency
is
fiist
notified
in writing and written approval i~obtained for
such air and water
pollution
control measures,
The
Responder~t
also agrees to pay
a stipulated p~na1tyof six hundred dollars
($600.00) within ten days of this order.
In
evolt~atingthis enforcement
~action
and propos~ed
settlement agreement,
the Board has
takers j~itoconsideration all
of the facts and c~.rcumstancesin
l~ightof thespecific criteria
delineated
in section 33(c)
of the Act a~dfinds the~settlement
agreement acceptable under
35 III, A~ni,~Cod~
1Q3~180.
The Respondent
is hereby found
to ha~peviolated
Sections
9
and~subsections 12(a) and 12(d)~
~f
the I1li,~Qis
gn~vironmenta1
Prot~ctjonA~tand 35
Ui.
Adm. Code 304,106,
3O
4.12~(c),
302~203,302.212(a),
501,403(b) and 501,402,(c),
The Respondent
is
ordered to comply
with the terms and ~he conditions of the
proposed settlement agreement and to~pay
the stipulated penalty
of
six hundred
dpllars ($600.00),
This Opinion constitutes the Boatd~sfindings of
fact and
conclusions of law
in
this matter,
ORDER
It
is the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board
that:
1,
The
Respondent,
Russell
G,
Wake,
has violated 35 Ill.
Code
304,106,
304.120(c),
302.203,
3O2,212(a),
501,403(b)
and 501,402(c) and Section
9
and subsections
12(a) and 12(d)
of the Illinois
Environmental Protection
Act.
2,
Within
10 days of the date of this
Order,
the Respondent
shall,
by certified check or money order
payable to the
State of Illinois,
pay
the stipulated penalty of six
hundred dollars ($600.00) which is to be sent to:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Services Division
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois
61706
3,
The Respondent shall comply with all
the terms and
conditions
of
the
Stipulation
and
Proposal
for
Settlement filed on December
13,
1984, which
is
incorporated by reference as
if fully
set forth
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Dorothy
M. Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board hereby c~rtif~’tha~.
the above Order was
adopted on
the
7~Z
day of
~
1985 by
a vote
~thyM.’Gu~
Illinois Pollution Control Board
62~5O5