ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
February
17,
1982
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION
AGENCY,
)
Complainant,
V.
)
PCB 81—142
MIKE
CAMERER
and WILLIAM WIIST
)
d/b/a W-C
FARMS,
Respondents,
MR. VINCENT W. MOPETH, ASSISThNT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED
ON
BEHALF
OF COMPLAINANT;
MR.
W.
THOMAS
RYDER, ATTORNEY AT LAW,
APPEARED
ON BEHALF OF
RESPONDENTS.
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by D. Anderson):
This matter comes before the Board upon a Complaint filed
September 14,
1981 by the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
(Agency) naming as Respondents Mike Camerer and William
Wiist,
d/b/a W-C Farms.
The Complaint alleges violations
of
§Sl2(a)
and 12(d)
of the Illinois Environmental Protection
Act (Act),
Rules 203(a)
and 203(f)
of Chapter
3:
Water Pollu-
tion, Rules
104(d) (3) (C)
and
104(e)
of Chapter 5:
Agriculture
Related Pollution,
and Agency guideline
“WPC—2’t,
all in connec-
tion with a hog facility.
A public hearing was held at Hamburg
on December 15,
1981,
at which time the parties presented a
stipulation
and
proposal for settlement.
Members of the public
attended but did not comment.
Respondents operate a livestock management facility known
as W-C Farms within Section 30, T9S, R2W of the 4th P.M.,
Calhoun County,*
The only livestock are swine.
The facility
has
a capacity of about 700 hogs.
The Agency issued Respondents
NPDES
Permit
No.
IL
0061191
on
February
19,
1980;
however,
the
*The
stipulation
also
specifies
“Hamburg
Township”.
The
Board
notes
that
Hamburg
is
situated
in
T9S,
R3W
(rather
than
T9S,
R2W).
The
Calhoun
County
Clerk’s.
office
has
confirmed
that Respondents
own
property
in
the
Sedtion
specified
above,
but denied that there is
any
such entity as
“Hamburg Township”.
45—419
—2—
Complaint alleges no violations
•of NPDES conditions.
The facility
discharges to an unnamed tributary of the Mississippi River.
Following is a summary of the provisions which are involved
in this action.
Both Chapters
3
and
5
are being codified during
the period in
which
this case is imder consideration.
The new
section numbers will therefore be indicated.
§12(a) of the Act
Discharge so as to cause water pollution
in violation of Board regulations.
Sl2(d)
of the Act
Deposit of contaminants on the land so as
to create a water pollution hazard.
3:203(a)1
Water quality standard prohibiting unnatural
§302.203
sludge or bottom deposits
3:203(f)
Water quality standard of 1.5 mg/i for
§302.208
ammonia nitrogen
5:104(e)
Quantity of livestock waste applied to land
§501.405
shall not exceed “a practical limit as
determined by soil type...”
5:104(d) (3) (C)
Contents of livestock waste handling
§501.404(c) (3)
facilities shall be kept at levels so
there is adequate storage capacity to
retain a 25-year, 24—hour storm event.
The following is
a summary of the allegations of the Complaint:
Count
Section/Rule
Summary
I
§12(a)
and 12(d)
Placement of hog waste on the
Rule 5:104(e)
land so as to create a water
“WPC-2”
pollution hazard.
II
§12(a)
and 12(d)
Overflow discharges from a
Rule 5:104(d) (3) (c)
hog waste facility
III
§12(a)
Violation of water quality
Rule 3:203(a)
standard prohibiting unnatural
sludge or bottom deposits
IV
§12(a)
Violation of water quality
Rule 3:203(f)
standards
£or ammonia nitrogen
1”3:203(a)” means Rule 203(a)
of Chapter 3
and
“5:104(e)”
means Rule 104(e)
of Chapter 5.
45—420
—3—
The facility includes a barn used to
house
animals.
There
is
a pit beneath the barn in
which
livestock
wastes
are
allowed
to
accumulate.
Wastes are supposed to be pumped
from
the
pit
to
a
nearby
waste
holding
lagoon.
From
the
facts
stipulated
it is not ~lear whether
the
lagoon
exists
or
is
only
proposed
(Stip.
2).
In any event,
Respondents
admit
that
they
allowed
the
pit
to
overflow
into
the
unnamed
tributary
on
three
specified
dates
in
1980
and
that they pumped contents of the pits into the
tributary
on
four
specified
dates
between
June
21,
1979
and
March
10,
1980,
It
is
stipulated
that
the overflows were not the result of
a
large
precipitation
event.
The
Board
finds
Respond-
ents
in
violation
of
Rule
104(d)
(3)
(C)
of
Chapter
5.
Respondents
also
admit
that
on
two
dates
in
September
and
October,
1979
they
applied
hog
waste
to
a
four—acre
field
with
a
slope
greater
than
5,
This
field
is
adjacent
to
the
unnamed
tributary.
Respondents
admit
that
the
waste
was
applied
in
an
amount
which
exceeded
the
practical
agronomic
rate.
The
complaint
alleges
violation
of
Agency
guideline
WPC—2
pertaining
to
application
rates
for
livestock
waste
to
land.
Rule
104(e)
refers
to
Rule
105
which
allows
adoption
of
Agency
design
and
maintenance
criteria.
This
has
been
codified
as
§502.305.
Rule
104(e)
of
Chapter
5
provides
only
that
the
quantity
of
waste
applied
not
exceed
“a
practical
limit.”
Relevant
consider-
ations
are listed which include soil type, permeability, condition,
slope,
cover
mulch
and
proximity
of
water.
Although
Rule
104(e)
refers
to
Agency
criteria,
it
does
not require compliance with
them.
The
criteria
may
be
used
as
evidence
that
the
waste
does
not
exceed
the
practical
limit,
but
it
is
not
determinative.
The Board finds Respondents
in violation of Rule 104(e)
of
Chapter
5
as alleged in Count I.
This finding is based on the
admission that the waste was applied in excess of the practical
agronomic limit, not that it exceeded the WPC—2 levels.
Respondents
admit that the pumpings, overflows and
excessive
waste applications caused waste to enter the unnamed tributary,
thereby
causing
contamination
of
waters
of
the
State.
The
Board
therefore
finds
violation
of
§12(d)
of the Act as alleged in
Counts
I and II,
*The
lagoon
“was
built
to
store
this waste”
(Stip.
¶5).
But
Respondents lacked funds ‘~neededto construct the waste holding
lagoon”
(Stip.
¶6).
45—42 1
—4—
Respondents admit that they caused unnatural sludge or
bottom deposits and ammonia levels in excess of water quality
standards.
The Board therefore finds that Respondents caused
violation of Rules 203(d)
and 203(f)
as alleged in Counts III
and IV.*
The Board also finds Respondents caused water pollution
and violated Board regulations in violation of §12(a)
of the
Act.
Respondents have agreed to a compliance plan which is
summarized as follows:
1.
Respondents will cease and desist violations of
the Act, Chapter
3 and WPC-2.
2,
Respondents will properly dispose of wastes on a
23-acre field located adjacent to the facility or
on a 160-acre farm owned by them in Jersey County.
The waste will be hauled by tanker truck.
Respond-
ents will inform the Agency before depositing waste
at other locations.
3.
Respondents will
maintain
six inches free board in
the pit and holding lagoon.
The Agency apparently
stipulates that this will meet the 25-year, 24-hour
requirement.
4.
Respondents
agree that no waste from the facility
will be deposited on adjacent land except the 23
acres
specified
in
paragraph
2.
5.
Respondents
agree to comply with the NPDES conditions,
6.
Respondents agree to have all equipment needed to
comply with the stipulation within 60 days after
entry of a Board order.
Respondents have agreed to cease and desist “violations”
of WPC-2.
As noted above, there
is no such thing as a “violation”
of Agency design criteria.
The Board will construe this provision
of
the
settlement as
an agreement to comply with these criteria.
*Respondents have admitted violating these rules.
Rule 402
is not alleged.
45—422
Respondents have agree~dto deposit waste
at
two locations,
There
are provisions for notification
of
the Agency and inspec-
tions~prior to disposal.
There
is
no
specific
requirement
of a
variance or modification
of
this Order prior to disposal,
as
would
be
required
if
the
Board
actually ordered Respondents to
conduct
waste
disposal at
two
sites
only.
The
Board
therefore
construes
the
agreement
as
meaning
only that
Respondents
shall
initially deposit waste
at only two locations and shall notify
the Agency and submit to inspections prior to utilizing other
areas,
There is no evidence of the degree of injury to health,
welfare and physical property other than that presumed to arise
from violation of the water quality standards
(533(c) (1)
of
the Act).
Actual levels of ammonia are not disclosed,
Respondents have admitted to gross pollution involving forma-
tion of sludge banks,
The enforcement action was filed in
response to citizen complaints
(Stip.
¶9).
The hog operation has social and economic value.
There is
no evidence as to its suitability to the area
533(c)
(2)
and
§33(c)
(3).
It
appears
that
it is technically
practicable
to
eliminate
these violations.
Respondents contend that the improper main-
tenance and operation of the facility resulted from lack of
funds due to a
depressed
hog market,
However, the Board has
long held that economic hardship alone does not excuse compliance
with the Act and Regulations
533(c)
(4).
The
agreement
provides
a
penalty
of $800 against the
Respondents jointly.
The Board accepts the stipulation,
as
construed above, pursuant to Procedural Rule 331.
The Board
finds that the penalty is necessary to aid enforcement of the
Act.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
1.
Respondents
Mike Camerer and William
Wiist,
d/b/a
W-C
Farms, have violated
§512(a)
and
12(d)
of
the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Act,
Rules
203(a)
and
203Cf)
of Chapter 3:
Water Pollution and Rules
104(d) (3) (C) and 104(~e)
of
chapte±
5:
Agriculture
Relatad
Pollution,
substantially
as
alleged
in
Counts
I
th±ough IV
of
the
Complaint.
45—423
2.
Respondents shall cease and desist further violations
of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act and
Chapter 3:
Water Pollution.
3.
Respondents shall, pursuant to the settlement
agreement,
conduct any future field application
of livestock waste in
accordance with Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency design criteria,
designated technical policy WPC—2.
4,
Respondents shall comply with
the
terms
of
the
settlement
agreement
filed January 6, 1982 as
construed
in
the Opinion.
The agreement is hereby
incorporated
by
reference.
5,
Within thirty days of the date of this Order Respond-
ents Mike Camerer and William Wiist,
d/b/a
W-C
Farms,
shall by certified check or money order payable to
the State of Illinois pay a civil penalty of $800
which is to be sent to:
State of Illinois
Fiscal 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 tha
e
above Opinion
and Order
were adopt~don the ~
day of
______________,
1982
by
a
vote of
.
-
~
Illinois Pollu
n Control Board
45—424