ILLINOIS. POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
July
21, 1982
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB 81—3
PAUL GOLDSTEIN
and
MIKE
GOLDSTEIN,
)
d/b/a GOLDSTEIN HOG FARM,
)
Respondents.
MR.
RICHARD
W.
COSBY,
FIRST
ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY
GENERAL,
APPEARED
ON
BEHALF
OF
COMPLAINANT;
MR.
PAUL
GOLDSTEIN
AND MR. MIKE GOLDSTEIN APPEARED PRO SE.
OPINION
AND
ORDER
OF
THE
BOARD
(by
D.
Anderson):
This matter comes before
the
Board upon
a Complaint
filed January 9, 1981 by the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency (Agency)
naming as Respondents Paul Goldstein and Mike
Goldstein, doing business as Goldstein Hog Farm.
The Complaint
alleges violations
of Section 12(a)
of the Environmental
Protection Act
(Act)
,
Rules 203(a),
203(f)
,
401(c)
,
402 and
404(c) of Chapter 3:
Water Pollution,
and
Rules
104(d) (3) (C)
and 104(d) (3) CD) (I)
of Chapter 5:
Agriculture Related Pollu-
tion.
A public hearing was held in Effingham on January 22,
1982.
No members of the public attended.
On February 20, 1981
the
Agency served requests to
admit
facts on the Respondents who did not deny the requests.
The
Agency introduced the requests
at the hearing as admissions
pursuant to Procedural Rule 314(c)
CR.
5).
The Hearing Officer
questioned the Respondents as to each question.
Respondents
admitted 1 through
5, disagreed with 6,
7 and
8 and commented
on
8 through 18,
Recognizing that Respondents are not repre-
sented by an attorney,
and
considering that little delay or
prejudice to the Agency resulted from the failure to deny,
th~
Board will consider Respondents’ comments along with the
matters
admitted
under
the
request
to
admit.
The
Goldsteins’
hog
operation
is situated on a 40—acre
tract northwest of the intersection of U.
S.
45 and Interstate
70,
just north. of Effingham,
in Section 16, Township
8 North,
Range
6 East of the Third Principal Meridian, Effingham County
(Ex.
3,
5,
11).
The Illinois Central tracks form the eastern
boundary; Route 45
is immediately east of and parallel to the
tracks.
A small creek crosses the northern boundary of the
47~-385
—2—
facility, flowing south.
It turns to the east and crosses
the tracks and Route 45 near the intersection
with.
1—70.
There it joins another small ‘creek which is tributary to
Salt Creek and th~Little
Wabash
River
(Ex.
11, 15).
Three barns are shown in Ex.
11.
The most northerly
seems not to be connected into the lagoon system.
Near the
middle
of
the
property
are
the
north
and
south
confinement
barns
CR.
49,
Ex.
11).
There
is a pit under the’ north barn
and
a
lagoon
to
the
immediate
north
of
the
south
1’.a
rn
(the
“north
lagoon’1)
(R.
50,
53,
Ex.
17).
These
discharge
to
the
“south lagocn”, which is to the east of the barns
(R.50,
54).
This is located just west of the small creek, to which it
discharges on overflow.
The Agency believes the facility
could accommodate
800 hogs
(R.
18); Respondents say 400
(R.
6,
49)
The facility includes
a fenced hog pasture through which
the creek runs
(Ex.
11).
Under Rules 104(b) (1) and 104(c) (1)
of Chapter
5, this is lawful for some livestock management
facilities existing before the effective date of Chapter 5.
On May 6, 1980 the Agency issued the Goldsteins NPDES
Permit No.
IL 0061395
(Ex.
14, 15).
This authorizes discharges
only during large precipitation events.
It requires maintenance
of facilities to contain a 25 year, 24 hour
precipitation
event and
various
reporting
and monitoring conditions.
The
Agency
has not alleged violation of permit conditions.
The following is
a summary of the allegations of the
Complaint.
Codified section numbers are indicated after Rule
numbers.
Count
Act/Rule
Date
_______
I
§12(a)
9/23/77
3:203(a)
12/6/79
§302.203
3/25/80
II
§12(a)
12/6/79
3:203(f)
3/25/80
§302.208
§304,105
III
§12(a)
12/6/79
3:401(c)
3/25/80
3:404. (c)
§304.104
&
402
Summary
Caused
waters
of
the
State
to become “black, turbid
and odorous and has allowed
unnatural
sludge
or
bottom
deposits
to
accumulate”
Cause
or
contribute
to
vio-
lation
of
1.5
mg/i
ammonia
nitrogen
water
quality
standard
Cause or allow discharge of
swine waste from lagoons in
excess
of
effluent
standards
of
10
mg/I
for
5—day
biochemi-
cal
oxygen
demand
(BOD)
and
47-386
—3—
Summary
12 mg/i for total suspended
solids
(TSS)
IV
*5:104(d) (3) (C)
5:104 Cd) (3) (D)
(1)
§501.404(c) (3)
§501.404(c) (4) (A)
Failure to maintain lagoon
storage capacity:
adequate
for 25 yr.,
24 hr.
storm;
and, adequate to prevent
water pollution
An Agency inspection on December 6,
1979 disclosed that
one
lagoon
had
recently
overflowed
and
lacked
freeboard,
space
in which additional inflow could be stored without additional
overflow.
The
south
lagoon
was
overflowing
into
a
draw
which
led directly
to
the
creek
to
the
east
(R.
16,
Ex.
17).
The
water
was
black
and
“septic
looking”
CR.
17).
The
Agency
took
samples
in
the
creek
upstream
and
downstream
of
the
discharge
and in the draw
CR.
63, Ex.
1).
The following table summarizes
the results:
Ammonia
BOD
TSS
Upstream
0.9
7
20
Milligrams Per Liter
Discharge
430
3090
460
Downstream
5.0
12
28
On February 13,
1980 the Agency observed the lagoons full
with
rio freeboard.
The lagoons were not overflowing because
they were frozen
(R.
20, Ex.
19.
On March 25,
1980 the Agency observed a lagoon overflowing
into the creek
(R.
23, Ex.
5,
20).
The discharge was described
as “black, turbid with a bad odor”
(Ex. 2).
*113:203fl
means Rule 203 of Chapter 3;
“5:104” means
Rule 104 of Chapter
5.
Count
Act/Rule
Date
12/6/79
3/25/80
47-387
—4—
The
‘Agency
again
took
samples
(R. 24,
65,
Ex.
2, 5).
The
following
table
summarizes
the
results:
Milligrams Per Liter
Upstream
Discharge
Downstream
Ammonia
0.2
194
3.0
BOD
8
937
16
TSS
480
300
65
On May 20, 1980 the Agency observed a lagoon with less
than one inch freeboard
(R.
27).
The Board finds that on December 6, 1979 and March 25,
1980 Respondents caused and allowed waters of the State to
become black, turbid and malodorous and to violate the water
quality standard for ammonia.
The Board further finds that
on the same dates,
Respondents caused and allowed discharges
in excess of five times
the
effluent standards for HOD and
TSS.
The Board further finds that Respondents failed to main-
tain adequate lagoon storage capacity to contain a 25 year,
24 hour storm event or adequate to prevent water pollution.
The Board therefore finds that Respondents violated Section
12(a)
of the Act, Rules 203(a), 203(f),
402 and 404(c)
of
Chapter
3:
Water Pollution,
and Rules
104(d) (3) (C)
and 104(d)
(3) (D) (i)
of Chapter 5:
Agriculture Related Pollution.
No
violation of the averaging rule, Rule 401(c), will be found.
Following each of the inspections of December 6,
1979
and February 13, 1980 the Agency notified Respondents of the
violations and suggested remedial measures
(Ex. 24,
25).
Among the suggestions were the following:
1.
Raise berms to lessen the frequency of discharge;
2.
Maintain 25 year,
24 hour storm storage capacity;
3.
Increase storage capacity to provide
4 to
6 months
detention of all wastes;
4.
Divert uncontaminated roof and surface water from
the lagoons with. gutters and terraces;
5.
Establish. a program for periodically knifing liquid
wastes into cropland.
Respondents have generally taken at least some action in
response to the Agency’s. suggestions,
as will be detailed
below.
However, the Agency observed an overflow from the
south confinement basin into the creek on June 2,
1981
(R.
42).
This indicates that the remedial measures were not adequate.
47-388
—5—
During
the
period
from
March
25
through
June
20,
1980
Respondents raised the lagoon berms
(R.
23,
27, 29, Ex.
21
and 22).
The Agency was dissatisfied with the use of concrete
chunks in the berm, stating that they might prevent proper
compaction
(R.
30).
The Agency believed the berm had adequate
freeboard, although there is no data on its capacity or the
volume needed to be stored in a storm event
(R.
30).
The major problem appears to be excess rainwater entering
the lagoon system causing overflow
(R. 20).
Guttering of barns
has not been carried out
CR.
28,
31, 45).
However, a ditch
has been cut between the barns to carry clean water directly
to the creek
(R.
43).
2~notherproblem is surface runoff from the fields to the
west of the barns
CR. 31).
The Soil Conservation Service
provides free surveys to determine whether terraces are
needed to control such runoff
(R. 45).
Respondents have not
carried out the Agency’s recommendation that such a survey
be done to determine whether runoff through the lagoons can
be controlled.
Respondents have acquired equipment to dewater the lagoons
by application of wastes to cropland
CR. 28,
32,
37,
80).
The Agency disapproves of Respondents’ method of filling their
tank by gravity flow from the lagoo~i (R.
32,
37).
However,
there seems to be nothing per se illegal about the arrangement,
assuming the system does not leak or spill matter into
tile
creek during transfer.
No question has been raised concerning
compliance with permit conditions.
The Agency’s initial investigation was in response to a
neighbor’s complaint that her cattle refused to drink the
water in the creek.
The Board finds the offensive discharges
to be a substantial interference with the protection of the
health, general welfare and physical property of the people
downstream
S33(c)(1)
of the Act).
The Board finds that the hog operation has social and
economic value and that it is suitable to the area
SS33(c)
(2)
and 33(c) (3).
The Hoard finds that it is technically prac-
ticable and economically reasonable to eliminate the discharges
by diverting clean water from the system.
The proper guttering
of
buildings
and terracing of the land should enhance its value
and increase its productivity in addition to improving water
quality
(S33(c) (4).
After considering the mitigating factors and remedial
measures already undertaken,
the Board finds that a civil
penalty in the amount of $1000
is necessary to aid enforcement
of the Act.
Respondents will be ordered to cease and desist,
47-389
—6—
within
90. days of the date of this Order,
discharges except
in response ‘to large predipitation events.
They will be ordered
to gutter the
buildings
‘and
to.
meet
with
the
‘Agency
and
Soil
Conservation Service ‘to develop a plan for diversion of surface
water.
This Opinion constitutes ‘the Board’s findings of fact
and conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
1.
Respondents Paul Goldstein and Mike Goldstein,
doing business as Goldstein’s Hog Farm,
have
violated SeCtion 12(a)
of the Environmental
Protection Act, Rules 203(a),
203(f), 402 and
404(c)
of Chapter
3:
Water
Pollution,
and Rules
104(d) (3) (C)
and
104(d)
(3)
(D) (i) of Chapter 5:
Agriculture Related Pollution,
substantially as
alleged in the Complaint.
2.
Within 45 days of the date of this Order,
Respondents
shall
meet
with
representatives
of
the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency and the
Soil Conservation Service, at a time and place
set by the Agency, for the purpose of developing
a plan to control surface runoff from the ‘fields
to the west of the hog barns.
3.
Respondents shall implement the surface runoff
plan as soon as practicable.
4.
Within 60 days of the date of this Order,
Respondents shall install gutters on the north
and
south
hog
confinement
barns
and
provide
for diversion of all water from the roofs
around the lagoon system.
5.
Within 90 days of the date of this Order,
Respondents shall cease and desist all discharges
from the
lagoons
‘except
in
response
to
precipitation
events large enough to cause lagoons complying
with Rule 104(d) (3)
of Chapter 5 to overflow.
6.
Within 90 days of the date of this Order,
Respondents shall cease and desist all violations
of Chapters
3:
Water Pollution and 5:
Agriculture
Related Pollution.
47-390
—7—
7.
Within 35 days of the date of this Order,
Respondents Paul Goldstein and Mike Goldstein
shall, by certified check or money order payable
to the State of Illinois, pay a civil penalty of
$1000 which is to be sent to:
State of Illinois
E’iscal Services Division
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois 62706
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Christan
L.. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order
were adopted on the ~
~t day of
_____________,
1982 by a
voteof
~t’~.()
.
I.
Christan L. Moffett,
ClerIc/
Illinois Pollution Control Board
47-391