ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    November 7, 1974
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    Complainant,
    v.
    )
    PCB 74-49
    CHICAGO-JOLIET LIVESTOCK MARKETING
    CENTER, INC. a Delaware corporation,
    )
    Respondent.
    Mr. James K. Jenks, II, attorney for Complainant.
    Mr. Richard J. Kissel, attorney for Respondent.
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Dr. Odell)
    On January 28, 1974, the Illinois Environmental Pro-
    tection Agency (Agency) filed a Complaint against Chicago—
    Joliet Livestock Marketing Center, Inc. (Center) alleging
    violations of Section 12 of the Illinois Environmental Protection
    Act (Act) and certain rules in Chapter Three,~the Water Pollution
    Regulations (Chapter Three). The Center operates a facility
    for the trading and marketing of livestock in Elwood, Will
    County, Illinois. The facility has a 5,000 daily capacity hog
    house, a 10,000 daily capacity cattle house, and an office—
    restaurant building. Each weekday, maintenance crews use high
    pressure hoses to clean the animal pens. The wastewater flows
    into manholes which feed lateral sewers. The sewers run from
    the hog and cattle buildings into an on—site lift station which
    pumps the waste into a 411,000-gallon holding tank. The material
    in the holding tank is normally hauled away for land spreading,
    but occasionally the tank has overflowed or been drained into a
    nearby unnamed watercourse which is tributary to Grant Creek.
    Grant Creek is tributary to the Des Plaines River.
    On February 5, 1974, the Agency filed an eight—count
    Amended Complaint. The Agency alleged that:
    1. From January 17, 1973, until February 5, 1974,
    Respondent caused or allowed inadequately treated human and
    animal waste to be discharged into the unnamed watercourse caus-
    ing water pollution in violation of Section 12(a) of the Act.
    2. From January 17, 1973, until February 5, 1974,
    Respondent operated its facilities to cause the discharge of
    wastewater effluent composed of sewage, industrial waste, settle—
    able solids, floating debris, oil, grease, and scum into the un-
    named watercourse in violation of Rule 403 of Chapter Three and
    Section 12(a) of the Act.
    14
    — 359

    —2—
    3. On six specified dates from July 1973 until
    January 1974, Respondent operated its facilities causing
    unnatural color and odor to flow into the unnamed watercourse
    in violation of Rule 203(a) of Chapter Three and Section 12(a)
    of the Act.
    4. On five specified dates from August 1973 until
    January 1974, Respondent operated its facility causing deoxygenat-
    ing wasted to be discharged into the unnamed watercourse
    in
    excess
    of the standards of Rule 404(a) of Chapter Three and in violation
    of Section 12(a) of the Act.
    5. On seven specified dates from April 1973 u~ti1January
    1974, Respondent operated its facility causing such amounts of
    fecal coliform to be discharged into the unnamed watercourse as to
    violate Rule 405 of Chapter Three and Section 12(a) of the Act.
    6. Respondent constructed a new treatment works facility
    on or about January 1, 1973, without obtaining a construction
    permit from the Agency in violation of Rule 901(a) of Chapter Three
    and Section 12(b) of the Act.
    7. The new treatment works constructed about January 1,
    1973, has been operating without an operating permit in violation
    of Rule 902 of Chapter Three and Section 12(b) of the Act.
    8. From January 17, 1973, until February 5, 1974,
    Respondent constructed and installed, as part of the new treatment
    works, new outlets to enable more contaminants to flow into the
    unnamed watercourse without a permit in violation of Section 12(c)
    of the Act.
    A hearing took place on August 9, 1974, in Joliet, Illinois.
    A Stipulation and Proposal For Settlement was read into the record.
    No citizens appeared at the hearing (R.19). The Respondent admitted
    violating Counts III through VIII of the Amended Complaint (para-
    graphs 3 through 8, above)
    ,
    agreed to pay a penalty of $5,000, and
    submitted with the Agency a program of compliance. In pertinent
    part, the Terms of Settlement stated:
    “9.
    . . .
    This proposed settlement is expressly conditioned
    upon, and effective only with approval thereof in all respects by
    the Illinois Pollution Control Board. The parties further stipulate
    that all statements contained herein shall be null, void and of no
    effect and shall not be used in any further litigation in the event
    that the Board fails to approve the following terms of settlement
    in all respects:
    “a. Respondent agrees to implement a waste treat-
    ment program for the treatment of wastewater
    from its hog and cattle facilities consisting
    of the following elements:
    (1) a screening unit to collect the solid
    material from the wastewater.
    14—360

    —3—
    (2) an anaerobic lagoon on neighboring
    land to the east of the Center with a
    retention capacity at least equal to
    6 months wastewater from the hog and
    cattle facilities.
    (3) a method of land application of the
    waste from the anaerobic lagoon which
    utilizes the spray irrigation or the
    ridge and furrow method or a combina-
    tion thereof.
    (4) appropriate pipes and pumps needed to
    implement the above system.
    ‘b. Respondent will specifically comply with all
    appropriate portions of the Environmental Pro-
    tection Act and Regulations adopted thereunder
    with regard to obtaining construction and opera-
    ting permits for the program outlined in sub—
    paragraphs a(l) through (4) above. The permits
    will be sought in the following manner:
    (1) A permit application for the construction
    of the anaerobic lagoon and appurtenances
    was submitted by Respondent on August 6,
    1974. The Agency issued a construct only
    permit for these facilities on August 9,
    1974. Construction shall be completed by
    September 30, 1974.
    (2) Respondent will submit, permit applications
    for the remainder of the program (including
    screening devices and method of land appli-
    cation of waste from the anaerobic lagoon)
    not later than October 15, 1974. The entire
    wastewater disposal system described above
    will be completed not later than June 1, 1975.
    “c. Upon the completion of the anaerobic lagoon and
    appropriate feeder pipes and pumps, all wastewater
    from the cattle and hog facilities will be dis-
    charged to the lagoon. There is to be no discharge
    from the lagoon to the land application site until
    such time as the entire program is completed and
    properly permitted, as described above.
    “d. The lagoon is to be sealed with clay material in
    such a manner as to prevent contamination of the
    ground water.
    “e. The lagoon is to be maintained in an anaerobic
    state until such time as facts exist which give
    the Agency reasonable grounds to believe that a
    violation of Section 9(a) of the Environmental
    Protection Act has occurred. If the Agency so
    14
    361

    —4—
    believes, it will immediately notify Respondent
    in writing as to its belief and the facts giving
    rise thereto, said notice to be in writing to
    any Officer or the Registered Agent of Respondent
    by certified mail, return receipt requested. Upon
    receipt of said notice, Respondent may demand a
    conference with a representative of the Agency
    fully empowered to act as described herein, said
    conference to be held within three weeks of
    receipt of notice by Respondent. If Respondent
    is unable to demonstrate to the satisfaction of
    the Agency’s Representative that the facts relied
    upon are not sufficient to establish a violation of
    Section 9(a) of the Act, then Respondent shall
    immediately undertake to convert the lagoon to an
    aerobid state, and/or implement such other measures
    as the Agency reasonably believes are necessary to
    abate odor from the lagoon. Nothing contained
    herein shall be construed as a limitation upon
    Respondent’s right to judicial review hereof as
    provided by the Environmental Protection Act or
    Regulations adopted thereunder, or upon the
    Agency’s right to proceed to enforcement upon any
    violation of the Act and appropriate Regulations
    adopted thereunder.
    “f. Respondent shall install, by no later than
    September 30, 1974, two (2) monitoring wells near
    the anaerobic lagoon. In addition, Respondent
    shall install six (6) other monitoring wells
    located in or proximate to the land application
    site such that any ground water contamination may
    be detected. Said wells shall be installed prior
    to any land application from said anaerobic lagoon.
    Respondent shall submit monthly reports to the
    Agency on the last day of each month concerning the
    condition of groundwater as monitored by said wells.
    “g. Respondent shall dispose of the wastes presently
    contained in its holding tank by on-site applica-
    tion, no permit being required from the Agency
    thereof. If disposal cannot be so accomplished
    on site, the waste will be removed through proper-
    ly permitted land disposal.
    “h. Respondent shall provide the Agency with a written
    statement by September 15, 1974, describing its
    contractual arrangement with the nearby landowner
    on whose site the program established above is to
    be implemented.
    “i. Respondent agrees to pay the State of Illinois
    a penalty of $5,000 for the violations admitted.
    “j.
    Respondent shall obtain any and all other permits
    14—3~

    —5—
    as may be required by the Environmental Protection
    Act or other rules, regulations or statutes.”
    We find that the Respondent has violated the regulations
    and the Act as alleged in Counts III through VIII of the Amended
    Complaint. We hold that violations of Counts I and II have not
    been established. We accept the Stipulation and Proposal For
    Settlement entered into between the parties. The program of com-
    pliance will result in the control of contaminants from the
    facility. The parties have dealt at arms length to resolve the
    pollution difficulties. Finally, no member of the public appeared
    at the hearing to oppose the settlement plan.
    This constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of
    law of the Board.
    ORDER
    IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that:
    1. Respondent cease and desist by June 1, 1975, from
    violations of the Act and Regulations established in this Opinion.
    2. Respondent pay a penalty of $5,000.00 for its violations
    of the Act and Regulations established in this Opinion. Payment
    shall be by certified check or money order payable to the State of
    Illinois, Fiscal Services Division, Environmental Protection Agency,
    2200 Churchill Road, Springfield, Illinois 62706. Payment shall be
    made within 35 days of the adoption of this Order.
    3. Respondent carry out the Terms of Settlement as con-
    tained in the Stipulation and Proposal For Settlement, as also set
    out in pertinent part in this Opinion.
    I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify that t e above Opinion and Order was ~dopted
    on the
    ~
    day of
    _______________,
    1974, by a vote of
    ~‘f
    to
    14
    —363

    Back to top