ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
April 26, 1979
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY,
Complainant,
V.
)
PCB 77—188
JOHN BURROWS and GEORGE
W.
HART,
JR., d/b/a HART-BURROWS~ PIG
PONDEROSA,
Respondents.
Ms. Ann L.
Carr, Assistant Attorney General, appeared on behalf
of the Complainant;
Mr. Philip M.
Pollock, Attorney at Law,
appeared on behalf of
the Respondents.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Young):
This matter comes before the Board on a Complaint filed
on July 11,
1977,
by the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency against Joh~iBurrows and George W. Hart,
Jr., d/b/a
Hart-Burrows’ Pig Ponderosa
(Ponderosa).
On September
27,
1977,
the
Agency submitted an Amended Complaint which alleged that
between
May
21, 1973,
and continuing to the date of filing
of
the
Amended Complaint, the Respondents operated their swine
farm so as to discharge swine waste to the waters of Illinois
in violation of Section
12(a)
of the Environmental Protection
Act and numerous provisions of Chapter
3:
the Board’s Water
Pollution Rules.
Hearings on this matter were held on December
1,
1977;
December
2,
1977,
and February 27,
1978.*
In
a seven—count Amended Complaint,
the Agency alleged
that
between May 21,
1973,
and September 27,
1977, Respondents’
*For
convenience
in notation,
the transcripts from the December
1
and
2,
1977, hearings will be cited as the “December Record,”
while
the
record
of
the
February
27,
1978, hearing will be
designated
as the “February Record,” since only the pages
in
the December transcripts are consecutively numbered.
33—361
—2—
swine farm operation caused, threatened or allowed the dis-
charge of swine waste to an unnamed tributary of Ackerman
Creek in violation of the Board’s Water Pollution Rules of
Chapter
3 and provisions of the ~ct
as follows:
Count
I charged that the discharges from Respondents’
swine farm operation caused a nuisance and water pollution
in violation of Section
12(a)
of the Act.
Count
II alleged that the discharges caused unnatural
sludge or bottom deposits,
floating debris, odor, unnatural
plant or algal growth and unnatural color in violation of
Rule 203(a)
of Chapter
3:
Water Pollution Rules and Section
12(a)
of the Act.
Count
III alleged that Respondents’
discharge of swine
waste caused the presence of less than 5.0 mg/l of dissolved
oxygen in violation of Rule 203(d) of Chapter
3 and Section
12(a)
of the Act.
Count IV alleged that Respondents’ discharge of swine
waste caused the presence of ammonia nitrogen in concentrations
greater than 1.5 mg/l
in the unnamed tributary of Ackerman
Creek in violation of Rule 203(f) of Chapter
3 and Section
12(a)
of the Act.
Count V alleged that Respondents’ violation of Rules
203(a),
203(d)
and 203(f)
(ammonia nitrogen) water quality
standards were also in violation of Rule 402 of Chapter
3
and Section
12(a)
of the Act.
Count VI alleged that the discharge of swine waste
contaminants to the unnamed tributary of Ackerman Creek was
five times greater than the
4 mg/l BODç and the
5 mg/l
suspended solids effluent limitations for intermittent
streams
in violation of Rules
401(c) and 404(f) of Chapter
3 and Section 12(a)
of the Act.
Count VII alleged that the swine waste contaminants to
the unnamed tributary of Ackerman Creek was five times
greater than the 400 per/lOO ml fecal coliform effluent
limitation in violation of Rules 401(c)
and 405 of Chapter
3
and Section 12(a)
of the Act.
The subject of this enforcement action concerns the
Hart—Burrows’ Pig Ponderosa
(Ponderosa)
,
a swine farm which
has been operated by Mr. John Burrows and Mr. George Hart
for seventeen years on a tract of land in Tazewell County
near Morton,
Illinois.
The swine farm raises approximately
3,000 hogs per year from farrow to finish in a pathogen-free
environment and ha3 capacity for 4,000 hogs.
To handle the
33—362
—3—
vast amounts of swine waste estimated at 735,000 gallons
per year, the Ponderosa has constructed lagoons for storage
of swine waste.
The original lagoon, constructed in 1973,
is about 225 feet by
90 feet and 10 feet deep.
In November,
1977,
the Ponderosa completed construction of a second lagoon
and also finished building a 4-foot levee around the perimeter
of the original lagoon.
The second lagoon has about the
same dimensions
as the original lagoon, except that it is
about 20 feet deep.
The second lagoon was built
to provide
additional storage capacity for swine waste and to correct
the overflow problems from the first lagoon.
(December Record,
13—17,
45-~47.)
Originating near the Ponderosa property is an unnamed
intermittent stream which flows south along the eastern border
of the swine farm into Ackerman Creek
(also an intermittent
stream)
at a point upstream of
a park district wildlife area
and a scout campground and flows through several farms and
near farm residences,
Immediately downstream of the confluence
between the unname~tributary and Ackerman Creek is a farm
owned and operated by Ernest and Sharon Phillips.
The farm
is approximately 900 feet upstream from the wildlife park
district and the campground.
The Phillips family moved onto
this
farm in August,
1972, and have raised small numbers of
sheep, geese and feeder beef on their farm.
Since
1973, the
Phillips have registered numerous complaints with the Agency
about the polluted condition of the Ackerman Creek,
(December
Record,
48,
58,
153,
169—70,)
During the first December hearing, Ernest and Sharon
Phillips testified that each had observed swine waste present
in the part of the Ackerman Creek which flows along the
northern border of their farm.
On or before July
2,
1974,
Sharon Phillips noticed a dark, blackish-green substance in
the stream,
Ernest Phillips testified that he discovered
that the stream contained deposits of dark grey hog waste
with a very strong odor on July
3,
1974,
and traced the
discharge while on neighbor’s property to the west fence
of the unnamed tributary on Ponderosa property.
The witness
claimed that he observed a manure spreader running effluent
out of the hose into the unnamed stream.
On July
9,
1974,
Ernest Phillips observed with binoculars after 9:00 p.m.
movement of a ‘~honeywagon” on Ponderosa property from a hog
confinement area to the west fence of the tributary.
(December
Record,
78,
162—65, 177—81.)
After receiving a complaint from Sharon Phillips, Lawrence
Eastep,
a field inspector with the Agency conducted an on-site
investigation on J~ily10,
1974, of the Ackerman Creek and its
unnamed tributary.
The investigation revealed that the waters
33—363
—4—
were clear
in the Ackerman Creek upstream from the confluence
with the unnamed tributary near location point A-l.
However,
waters flowing from the unnamed tributary near location point
B-i ran from gray to black with strong odors.
Below the
confluence near location point C-l on Phillips’ property,
Mr. Eastep testified that the Ackerman Creek was septic
and black.
Near location point C-2, approximately 300 yards
from the confluence at the western border of the Phillips’
farm,
the waters of Ackerman Creek were dark gray and turbid.
(December Record, 194-97,
see Exh.
#6.)
During the field investigation,
Mr. Eastep collected
water samples from the unnamed tributary at B-i and in the
Ackerman Creek, upstream at A—i and downstream at C—2.
Analysis of the samples
by the Agency’s Region III laboratory
in Peoria,
Illinois revealed the following:
A-l
B-l
C-2
Fecal Coliform
(per 100 ml)
6,200
600,000
300,000
Ammonia Nitrogen
(mg/l)
0
147
141
BOD
(mg/i)
1
1,051
822
Suspended Solids
(mg/l)
1
295
510
(See Exh.
#1-A,
1-B and 1-C.)
In a conversation with Mr. Eastep on July 10,
1974,
Mr. Hart stated that the discharge was due to a misunderstanding
by his employees who dumped the swine waste near the unnamed
tributary.
On July 24,
1974,
Mr. Eastep returned to collect
water samples and discovered similar conditions
in the Ackerman
Creek.
Upstream from the confluence with the unnamed tributary,
Mr.
Eastep observed that the stream was clear, while the unnamed
tributary contained black, odorous, septic material,
At a
point 200 to 300 yards from the confluence,
Mr. Eastep dis-
covered that the stream was gray and turbid with septic bottom
deposits.
During this field investigation,
Mr. Eastep collected
water samples
in the Ackerman Creek at A—i and near C—l, twenty
feet downstream from the confluence with the unnamed tributary.
Dissolved oxygen analysis conducted by the Agency’s Region III
laboratory indicated a 7.6 mg/l value for upstream waters and
a 3.7 mg/i dissolved oxygen value for water downstream from
the confluence with the unnamed tributary
(December Record,
204—13,
Exh,
#2—A,
2-B).
During the first hearing,
the Phillips testified that
they observed with binoculars a honey wagon in use on December
24,
1974,
after 9:00 p.m.
on the Ponderosa property backed up
33—364
—5—
to the southeast portion near the unnamed tributary.
After-
ward,
Mr. Phillips testified that he discovered deposits of
black, grayish waste with a strong odor which was characterized
as swine waste
(December Record,
115—16,
140,
146,
166-67).
In other evidence, Lyle Ray, a specialist with the Agency,
conducted an investigation in the vicinity of Ackerman Creek
on August
12,
1976,
after receiving a complaint from Sharon
Phillips.
During the field investigation,
Mr. Ray testified
that he discovered waste deposits coming from the unnamed
tributary and he followed this stream to the Ponderosa swine
farm where he noticed that swine wastes were leaking from its
lagoon.
On this occasion, Mr. Ray met with Mr. Hart and in-
formed him of the discharge from the lagoon.
Mr. Hart responded
that the overflow was caused by muskrats boring holes
in the
lagoon and that he would see to
it that the hole was properly
patched within 24 hours.
Mr. Hart also related that he was
considering raising the levee of the first lagoon and con-
structing a second lagoon.
(December Record,
43-46, 283—84)
During this investigation,
Mr. Ray collected water samples
of the overflow from the Ponderosa swine waste lagoon,
samples
of lagoon drainage to the unnamed stream, and from Ackerman
Creek at location points A-l and C-2.
Analysis from the Region
III laboratory indicate the following results:
A-i
Lagoon
Drainage
C-2
Overflow
to Trib.
Fecal Coliform
(per
100 ml)
5,500
90,000
10,000
80,000
Ammonia Nitrogen
(mg/l)
20
410
11
107
BOD
(mg/i)
3
630
350
13
Dissolved Oxygen
(mg/i)
6.7
0.0
2.9
On a return visit on March 11,
1977,
to the Ackerman Creek,
Mr. Ray noticed no significant change
in water quality from
his prior inspection.
While upstream waters were found to
be clear,
the Ackerman Creek was gray and turbid approximately
1/8 mile downstream from the confluence with the unnamed
tributary.
Samples collected by Mr. Ray on this date and
analyzed by the Region III laboratory indicated as before that
drainage from the swine waste lagoon into the unnamed tributary
caused or allowed water quality violations
in the unnamed
tributary and in the waters downstream from its confluence
with the Ackerman Creek
(December Record,
294-98,
Exh.
#8-A,
8—B,
8—C,
8—D)
33—365
—6’-
In response to a complaint by sharon Phillips, Mr. Ray
returned to investigate the Ackerman Creek once again on
May 12,
1977.
Mrs.
Phillips testified that she had to wade
through waste deposits with swine odor in the Ackerman Creek
to retrieve a lamb.
Upon arrival, Mr. Ray testified that he
made no formal inspection but did obtain water samples at
location points A-l, C-i and C-2 to quantify the water quality
of the creek.
Analysis from Region III laboratory revealed
the following resu1t~:
A-i
C-i
C-2
Fecal Coliform
(per 100 ml)
260
300
300
Ammonia Nitrogen
(mg/l)
.12
13.0
15,0
BOD
(mg/i)
1.0
5
20
Dissolved Oxygen
(mg/i)
7.1
6.8
12.8
(R.
76—77,
124—25, 156—58,
326,
Exh.
#10—A,
10—B,
10—C.)
On other occasions, particularly September
20,
1977,
and
November 23, 1977,
Sharon Phillips testified that she had
discovered blackish, gray waste in the creek which changed to
a reddish color on the former date and a milky colored waste
with a strong hog waste odor on the November date.
(December
Record,
117—20,
168.)
During the hearings, the Respondents questioned the
abilities of Complainant’s witnesses to identify and distinguish
swine waste by its characteristic appearance and strong odor
in the tributary or the Creek.
The Respondents further
challenged testimony of witnesses who traced the swine wastes
to the Ponderosa property
(December Record,
98—99, 156—58).
The Board finds that these objections
to the testimony of
Complainant’s witn~ssesgo to the weight of the testimony and
to the credibility of the witnesses which the Board has con-
sidered in light of the record and are not grounds for exclusion.
The Respondents also objected to the admissibility of
photographs submitted by Mr.
Ray concerning conditions
in the
Ackerman Creek vicinity which the Complainant offered as
exhibits into evidence.
Exhibit #4 depicted flow from the
Ponderosa swine waste lagoon on August i2,
1976.
Exhibits
#7-C and 7—D showed the conditions of the waters in the
Ackerman Creek upstream and downstream from the confluence
with the unnamed tributary.
Exhibits #9-A and 9-B were
pictures of the main swine waste lagoon taken by Mr. Ray
on March 16,
1977.
After reviewing the record on this matter,
33—366
—7--
the Board will accept the photographs
in Exhibit #4 with
the captions revised to exclude conclusory remarks and will
admit in evidence Exhibits #7-C and 7-D and Exhibits #9(A-J)
as an accurate portrayal of conditions on the Ponderosa swine
farm,
in the unnamed tributary and in the Ackerman Creek.
(December Record,
284—87,
312,
324,)
There was a great deal of discussion during the hearings
concerning the Agency’s right
to conduct reasonable
investigation on private property.
Section 4(d) of the Act
confers certain authority upon the Agency to:
(E)nter at all reasonable times upon any private
or public property for the purpose of inspecting
and investigating to ascertain possible violations
of the Act or of regulations thereunder,
or of
permits or terms or conditions thereof,
in
accordance with constitutional limitations.
In this case, the Agency’s field inspectors, Lawrence
Eastep and Lyle Ray entered upon the Ponderosa property to
collect samples,
to investigate probable violations of the
Act and regulations and to inform the owners of the Ponderosa
of the water pollution problems disclosed by their investi-
gations.
The record indicates that the investigations were
conducted in a professional manner and at a reasonable time.
In considering the evidence in light of the constitutional
limitations,
it
is evident that there was probable cause for
the Agency to suspect violations of the Act and the Board
regulations to permit them on the Ponderosa property to
conduct a reasonable investigation.
Accordingly, the Board
finds that the Agency inspectors had rightful authority to
enter upon the Ponderosa swine farm pursuant to Section 4(d)
of the Act.
The invasion of privacy,
if
it can be said to
exist at all,
is abstract and theoretical.
Air Pollution
Variance Board of the State of Colorado
v.
Western Alfalfa
j~~on, 416 U.S.
861,
865
(1974).
At the conclusion of Complainant’s case—in—chief during
the February hearing, the Respondents made
a motion to dismiss
each and every count of the Complaint.
As grounds for this
motion,
the Respondents claimed that
(1) the Complainant had
not proved that pollutants in the Ackerman Creek came from
the Hart-Burrows’ property;
(2)
the Complainant had demonstrated
an inadequate chain of custody for the water samples from
collection
to the Region III laboratory;
(3) the Complainant
had left one sample out in the sun in a car trunk for several
hours where chemical changes in the sample could have occurred;
and
(4)
the Complainant had denied the Respondents due process
33—367
—8—
by destroying the samples before the Respondents had an
opportunity to have their own chemist test and analyze the
samples.
The Hearing Officer, pursuant to Procedural Rule
308, referred this motion to the Board.
(February Record,
73—75.)
After due consideration of these issues,
the Board
finds that the Respondents’ grounds
for dismissal basically
relate to the proper weight to be given to the evidence
presented by pointinc out various weaknesses in the Complainant’s
case.
Accordingly,
the Respondents’ motion
is hereby denied.
After carefully evaluating the evidence in the record,
the Board finds that Mr. John Burrows and Mr.
George Hart,
Jr., d/b/a Hart-Burrows’ Pig Ponderosa between May 21,
1973,
and September 27,
1974,
have caused or allowed the discharge
of swine waste into the unnamed tributary of Ackerman Creek
in violation of Rules 203(a),
203(d), 203(f)
(ammonia nitrogen),
402,
404(f)
and 405 of Chapter
3:
Water Pollution Regulations
and Section
12(a)
of the Environmental Protection Act.
The charges alleging violation of Rule 401(c)
in Counts VI
and VII of the Complaint will be dismissed.
The reference to
five times the numerical standard in Rule 401(c)
establishes
an exception to the averaging rule in Part IV of Chapter
3 for
24-hour composite samples.
The rule is prescriptive and not
prohibitive in nature.
See R70-8,
3 PCB 401,
405, January
6,
1972.
In mitigation,
the record indicates that three weeks prior
to the first December hearing, Respondents completed construction
of a second lagoon with dimensions of 225 feet by 90 feet by 20
feet with a total capacity for 1.2 million gallons of swine waste
to control the discharge from the Hart—Burrows operation.
Mr.
Hart also testified that the Ponderosa had recently purchased
a new liquid manure spreader which has a capacity of 3,200
gallons.
(February record,
140-43,)
Since the first lagoon was built, Mr. Hart testified that
the Ponderosa had spent over $18,000 in their waste management
program.
When broken down into line items,
the Ponderosa spent
approximately $7,000 for the liquid manure spreader and
approximately $11,000
in the construction of the second lagoon
in addition to costs for the four foot levee around the original
lagoon.
The record indicates that while construction on the
second lagoon began in 1976,
it was not completed until
November,
1977, due to poor weather conditions and problems
with the contractor.
(February Record,
140-43,)
Although the Ponderosa believes that the current waste
management program provides ample capacity for the Ponderosa
swine farm operation and will eliminate the discharge problems
to the unnamed tributary of the Ackerman Creek, the Agency is
not so optimistic.
During the February hearing,
Mr.
Lyle Ray
33—368
—9—
agreed that the second swine waste lagoon has provided additional
capacity to remedy immediate problems,
but Mr. Ray claimed
that the Ponderosa lagoons could reach their design capacity
if poor weather conditions
in the spring or fall prevent use
of the manure spreadEr. (February Record,
23,
35, 48-49,
140-43).
Accordingly,
Mr. Ray submitted a proposed waste program
for the Hart-Burrows operation which will be accepted as
Exhibit #16 over the objection of the Respondents.
In this
proposal,
Mr. Ray described how a small irrigation-type
system could provide the Ponderosa waste management program
with
“somewhat more flexibility.”
Mr. Ray testified that a
gated irrigation system with a capacity of
25 GPM if operated
4 hours a day for 45 days during the summer would remove
approximately 270,000 gallons of liquid material from the
lagoons.
The witness stated that the application of this
irrigation system as to
a waste lagoon system is somewhat
new for this aea and possibly experimental
in nature.
Mr.
Ray estimated that the cost of an irrigation of this type
could range from $5,000 to
as much as
$15,000.
(February
Record,
30—35, 47, 55, Exh.
#16.)
Other
systems considered during the hearings which
would not require new equipment,
include a program which
would make use of Ponderosa’s new 3,200 gallon manure
spreader
10 days
in the spring and
10 days in the fall
if
weather permits
(February Record,
61).
Mr.
Ray testified
that
if the Ponderosa would set aside
30 acres for knifing-in
of liquid manure during the summer months,
an irrigation
program might be unnecessary
(February Record,
50—51).
In defense of Complainant’s allegations,
the Respondents
called three witnesses:
Richard Seagraves and Clifford Nauman
from the Moorman Feed Company and George Hart,
Jr.
Mr.
Seagraves,
a feed manager for 26 years, testified that he was
quite familiar with the Hart-Burrows’
swine farm as he is with
many other swine operations
in the area.
Until the February
hearing, Mr. Seagraves had never heard of a gated irrigation
system or any used in a swine farm operation.
The witness
stated muskrats are a common problem for pits, pools and
lagoons in this area and that it is illegal to kill or dispose
of muskrats without a permit from the Department of Conservation.
Mr. Seagraves testified that the Respondents’ new lagoon was
built with thick walls and that the levees were
“a lot thicker
than
I had seen them made on any lagoon built
in the last ten
years.
33—369
—10—
Mr. Seagraves stated
that
most swine farm operations
he visits do
not
have lagoons to store swine waste but
merely
pump
the
waste
out
of
the
pits
under
the confinement
areas
and
spread
directly
on
the
field
(February
Record,
81—82,
97—99).
Respondents’
second
withess,
Clifford
Nanmmrz,
has
been
a
feed
salesman
for
19
years
with
the
Moorman
Feed
Company.
Mr.
Nauw~nstated
that
in
the
course
of
his
business,
none
of
the
20
swine
customers
have
utilized
a gated
irrigation
system
(February
Record,
117,
120).
In
defense
of
the
Ponderosa
swine
operation,
George
Hart
stated
that,
‘(T)here
was
never
any
swine
waste
dumped
into
any
dry
ditch
on
our
farm
since
I
have
been
in
business.
We
have never deliberately or intentionally polluted any
stream
by dumping any waste into any creeks.’
(February Record, 145.)
Mr
•
Hart
said
that
the
Ponderosa’ s
current
waste
manage-
ment
disposal
system is
now
superior
to
the
alternative
irrigation
system
proposed
by
Mr.
Ray.
With
the
current
investnent
in
equipment,
the
Respondents
do
not
anticipate
potential
runoff
problems
which
might
be
generated
by
an
irrigation
system
installed
in
clay
soil
on
rolling
ground.
The
withess
believes
that
the
swine
waste
would
“have
a
greater
tendency’
to
get
into
the
waterways
of
the
stream
through
an
irrigation
system.’
In
reference
to
the
two
large
swine
operations
in
the
vicinity
of
the
Ponderosa,
Mr.
Hart
stated
that
the
coua~nexperience
of
swine
farmers
is
that
if
the
manure
is
not
knifed
deep
enough
into
the
ground,
there
is
a
greater
chance
of
direct
runoff
than
if
a
thin
layer
were
laid
over
a
large
area.
(February
Record,
152,
151.)
On
those
occasions
that
Mr.
Ray
discovered
leaks
in
the
lagoon
berms,
Mr.
Hart
testified
that
the
holes
were
immediately
cemented
shut.
Mr.
Hart
also
stated
that
the
Ponderosa
has
made
arrangements
to
spread
swine
waste
on
pastureland
during
the
summer
approximately
one
mile
away
from
the
Ponderosa.
(February
Record,
155—56,
172.)
section
33(c)
of
the
Act
requires
the
Board
in
making
its
determinations
to
consider
and
evaluate
the
degree
of
injury
to
the
public,
the
social
and
economic
value
of
the
pollution
source,
the
suitability
of
its
location
and
the
technical
pricticability
and
economic
reasonableness
of
reducing
and
eliminating
the
pollution
violation.
Discharges
from
the
Ponderosa
swine
operation
during
the
period
of
the
Complaint
were
not
isolated
incidences.
The
record
indicates
that
the
Respondents
have
caused
or
allowed
33—370
—11—
obnoxious swine waste to be discharged into waters of this
State which flow through farms, a park district wildlife area
and a scout campground.
Evidence in the record reveals that
not all the discharges were the result of muskrat borings.
While the Board recognizes that the Respondents have incurred
expenses in an effort to prevent these discharges from
occurring in the future, the Respondents’ past record prior
to the initiation of this action cannot be ignored.
The social and economic value of the Ponderosa swine
farm as well as its suitability to the area is not questioned
here.
Mr. Nauman stated that the Ponderosa operates
in a
pathogen—free environment.
The Ponderosa keeps
its pens clean
and hauls the manure to the lagoon
(February Record,
123).
The Board finds,
however, that the fact that the Ponderosa
is a well—run operation will not excuse the numerous
violations of the Act and the water pollution regulations
of the Board.
The testimony in the record indicates that compliance
with the water pollution requirements of this State for a
well—run swine farm operation is technically practical and
economically reasonable.
In view of these findings,
the Board will assess
a
penalty of $3,000.~)0for the violations of the Act and the
Board Regulations found herein.
The Respondents and the Agency
shall evaluate the current waste management system of the
Ponderosa swine farm to determine whether the program provides
adequate storage for swine wastes and the means to spread the
swine waste
so as not to cause violation of the Act or Board
Regulations.
The Respondents shall cease and desist from
further violations.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact
and conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
1.
Respondents, John Burrows and George W.
Hart, Jr.,
d/b/a Hart—Burrows’ Pig Ponderosa,
is found to have caused
or allowed the discharge of swine waste to an unnamed tributary
of Ackerman Creek and waters of this State between May 21,
1973, and September
27,
1977,
in violation of Section 12(a)
of the Environmental Protection Act and Rules 203(a),
203(d),
203(f),
402,
404(f)
and 405 of Chapter
3:
of the Water Pollution
Rules and Regulations.
33—371
—12—
2.
Respondents, John Burrows and George W. Hart,
Jr.,
d/b/a Hart—Burrows’ Pig Ponderosa shall cease and desist
violating Section 12(a) of the Environmental Protection Act
and Rules 203(a), 203(d),
203(f)
(ammonia nitrogen),
402,
404(f)
and 405 of Chapter
3:
Water Pollution Rules and
Regulations.
3.
Respondents, John Burrows and George W.
Hart,
Jr.,
d/b/a Hart-Burrows’ Pig Ponderosa,
shall pay a penalty of
$3,000.00 for the aforementioned violations within 35 days
of this Order.
Payment shall be by certified check or money
order payable to:
State of Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Services Division
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield,
Illinois
62706
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Christan
L.
~offett,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereb~jcertify the above Opinion and Order were
adopted on the
__________
day of
_____________,
1979,
by
a
vote of
__________
Christan
L. Moff~JV~Clerk
Illinois
Pollution
ontrol
Board
33—372
