ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
April 18,
1974
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Complainant,
)
v.
)
PCB 73—225
ALEXANDER RINK
AND
ROBERT RINK
)
d/b/a RINK PIG FARM,
)
Respondents.
Richard W. Cosby and Frederic J.
Entin, Assistant Attorney
Generals for Complainant.
Jerald
S.
Galowich for Galowich, Galowich, McSteen and Phelan,
attorney for Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Dr. Odell)
The Environmental Protection Agency (hereinafter Agency)
filed a Complaint on May 25,
1973, against Respondents,
Rink
Pig Farm,
as follows:
a.
That Respondents, Alexander Rink and Robert Rink,
own and operate certain facilities, including
but not limited to Rink Pig Farm, surrounding
fields and attendant equipment, located on the
southeast quarter, SectionS 21, Township 33 North,
Range
9 East, Will County, near Wilmington,
Illinois.
b.
“That the area within
a radius of approximately
one mile of Respondents’ aforesaid pig farm
contains numerous homes and summer cottages.
c.
“That from on or about July
1,
1970, and continu-
ing every day of operation to the filing of the
Complaint herein, Respondents have operated their
aforementioned facilities
in a manner which
caused or allowed the discharge of odors into the
ambient atmosphere of the State of Illinois, said
odors being contaminants within the meaning of
Section 3(d)
of the Environmental Protection
Act
(hereinafter Act)
,
~Chap. 111—1/2,
Iii. Rev.
Stat.,
Section 1003(d)
(l971)J
d.
“That the presence
~fl
the
atmosphere
of
said
odors is of sufficient quantities and of such
characteristics and duration as to be injurious
to human, plant,
or animal
life,
to health, or
to property,
or to unreasonably interfere with
12—59
—2—
the enjoyment of life or property and,
therefore,
causes air pollution as that term is defined in
Section 3(b)
of the Act,
Chap.
111-1/2,
Ill.
Rev. Stat., Section 1003(b)
(1971).
e.
“That from on or about July
1,
1970,
and continuing
every day of operation to the filing of the
Complaint herein, Respondents have caused or
allowed the discharge or emission of contaminants
into the environment so as to cause or tend to
cause air pollution in Illinois, either alone or
in combination with contaminants from other sources,
in violation of Section
9(a)
of the Act,
Chap.
ill-
1/2,
Ill.
Rev.
Stat., Section 1009(a)
(1971).
It
is Complainant’s belief and Complainant hereby
alleges and may show,
that the emissions and
violations alleged in this paragraph will continue
on each day of operation hereafter, unless abated
after the filing hereof.”
A hearing was held on November 26,
1973, during which
additional facts were presented and a “Stipulation and Proposal
for Settlement” was made a part of the record.
At the time of
the hearing, Mr.
F.
J. Entin stated that “At present, this agree-
ment has not been signed by Mr. Jeffrey Diver, who is Acting
Director for the Environmental Protection Agency.
He is aware of
the agreement and what it does contain.
There have been a few
minor changes today, and he has not seen those, but those will be
brought to his attention tomorrow morning, probably, and we expect
that his approval will be put on there, but as of yet,
he has not
formally signed this agreement”
(R—5).
Rink’s signature was not
on the first Stipulation.
It was not until April
4,
1974,
that the Pollution Control
Board received a signed “Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement.”
This differed in the following respects from the unsigned one that
had been entered into the hearing record on November 26,
1973.
Paragraph 9 of the signed Stipulation stated that “for purposes
of this settlement only, Respondent admits that said odor was
present on that day
(July 6,
1972)
and that same shall be found by
the Board to have been in violation of Section 9(a)”
.
.
.
of the
Act.
In the unsigned Stipulation, Rink denied alleged violations
in the Complaint.
In the “Terms of Settlement”,
Item A was changed
from “the Board may find Respondents in violation of Section 9(a)
•
.
.“
in the unsigned Stipulation,
to
“the Board shall find
Respondents in violation of Section 9(a)
.
.
.“
in the signed docu-
ment.
In compliance item B4, wording was added in the signed
Stipulation that “Rink shall in no case haul manure on a national
holiday. Further, Rink shall use every effort to haul only on week-
days
.
.
..“
With regard to a penalty for violations, item C was
changed from “Board may require
Rin.
to remit $500.00 payment” in
the unsigned Stipulation,
to “Rink hereby agrees that he shall pay
the sum of
$500.00 in the nature of a penalty”
in the signed docu-
ment.
12—60
—3—
The Stipulation indicated that from on or about 1964
to
the present date,
the tract described in the Complaint was
operated by Respondent Rink as a pig farm.
Alexander Rink is
the owner of the real estate in question, but is not the owner
or operatot of the business known as the Rink Pig Farm, which is
solely owned and operated by Robert Rink,
son of Alexander Rink.
It was stipulated that four exhibits, A,
B, C, and D be
introduced into evidence in this proceeding.
Exhibit A is a
letter of March
8,
1972,
from the Environmental Protection Agency
to Mr. Robert Rink, indicating that,
on the basis of an Agency
inspection of his facility on March
2,
1972,
“excessive emission
of
nOXiOUS
offensive odors” from his pig farm operation may con-
stitute violations of the Environmental Protection Act.
Exhibit B includes two Agency memoranda,
an “enforcement
referral” of March
8,
1972,
and “supplemental information” con-
cerning the Rink Pig Farm, dated March
9,
1972.
The “enforce-
ment referral” discusses the information gathered by the Agency
surveillance personnel at the Rink Pig Farm on March 2,
1972.
It states that “Mr. Rink was unaware of any recent odor emissions
from their pig farm.
He said they had been spreading the liquid
pig waste material in the fields during the past few weeks.
He
said that during the summer the waste material is spread on the
fields, but an injector is used so that the liquid waste is
injected into the soil rather than spread on top of the fields.
During the winter they cannot inject into the soil and they
have been spreading on top of the fields.”
Pigs are raised in
3 enclosed buildings with slatted floors over waste pits
4 feet
deep.
The buildings house approximately 2,500 pigs.
The liquid
wastes from the pits are hauled by
a tank trailer to farm fields
and spread over 640 acres owned .by the Rinks.
“It was explained
to Mr. Rink that there has been recent odor complaints by nearby
residents, which seemed to be related to spreading the liquid pig
wastes on top of the farm fields during the winter time.
•
Residents living in the vicinity of the Robert Rink Pig Farm
have complained of sickening, nauseating odor emissions from
subject farm since December of
1970.
.
.
.
During the summer of
1971, residents
in the vicinity of subject pig farm and also
people having summer cottages on Kankakee River near subject farm
complained of odors from subject farm of such character and
duration that they were unable to enjoy their homes and property.”
The Agency memorandum of March
9,
1972,
lists
15 letters received
from 11 households during 1971 com~’lainingabout odors from the
Rink Pig Farm.
Four women in households which had complained in
writing during 1971 were interviewed,
and one of them had in-
dicated on a calendar 13 dates during January and February, 1972,
when the odor was “especially sickening and nauseating.”
Another
man indicated that he “noted the odor on March
1,
1972.”
12—61
—4—
Exhibit C is an Agency memorandum of July 24,
1972, which
lists
3 telephone complaints received July 18,
1972, alleging
objectionable odors caused by the Robert Rink Pig Farm.
These
complaints were from
3 of the households which had been inter-
viewed in March,
1972,
and had written letters of complaint during
1971.
One caller had recorded on her calendar 7 dates during the
first half of July,
1972, when the pig odor was especially bad.
Exhibit D is an Agency memorandum of March 26, 1973, which
describes a visit to the Rink Pig Farm on March 22, 1973,
and a
discussion there between Messrs. Al~xanderand Robert Rink and
three Agency staff members
(Messrs. James Frank,
D.
R. Bauer, and
W.
Zenisek)
and Mr. F.
J. Entin, Assistant Attorney General.
Messrs. Alexander and Robert Rink described the pig operation in
detail,
including volume of production, building sizes, waste
storage capacity (73,700 cubic feet or 551,400 gallons),
tank
trailers for hauling liquid waste, soil injection equipment,
and other facilities.
Mr. Robert Rink explained that during
December,
1972,
and January, 1973,
they had to spread the pig
waste on the surface of fields without injection.
It was
explained to Mr. Rink that odor complaints were received by the
Agency during January,
1973.
Mr. Robert Rink estimated that when
they receive
a second waste injection tank trailer within the
next few weeks
“they could haul about 100,000 gallons
in a
ten-
hour day and empty the pits in about five or six days.”
Addi-
tibnal storage capacity was discussed,
as were hauling when the
wind was in the most favorable direction and use of chemicals
to abate odors.
Testimony during the hearing
(R-9)
indicated
that this memorandum of the farm visit
(Exhibit D)
“constituted
the major input into the information that Mr. Frank obtained and
used in formulating the compliance program, which is contained
in the Stipulation.”
According to the Stipulatien,
“the parties agree that
immediately after Rink was originally contacted by the Attorney
General’s office in 1970,
and thereafter to this date, Rink has
endeavored to eliminate said odors and has and is trying different
methods and processes to do
so, and has continuously cooperated
with the Agency in this matter.”
During the hearing on November
26,
1973, Mr.
F.
J. Entin
explained the background of the odor complaint and the alleged
violations by the Rink Pig Farm.
Mr.
James Frank described in
detail the stipulated compliance program to abate the objection-
able odorous emissions.
Mr. Robert Rink testified that there are approximately
3,000 hogs on his farm at any one time and that h~currently
produces about 5,000 hogs annually in buildings
(R-32).
Between
1964 and 1969 he produced about 3,000
hogs annually.
There are
seven residences in the immediate vicinity of the hog buildings,
on the northeast corner of the Rink Pig Farm,
“and there are
cottages
(estimated 20 to
25)
across the road that are farther
12
—
62
—5--
away,
and also another three or four residences
across the road”
(R-33).
.
.
.
“Within two years ago, there was only one family
dwelling on the corner of my farm.
Now there are about seven”
(R—34).
Mr. Rink started injecting liquid pig waste into the
soil in 1971, when this system was introduced.
Since 1971, Mr.
Rink has tried three or four chemicals to put on the pit floors
to abate odors, but these materials have been ineffective.
Recently he has been testing odor masking agents which seem to
be more effective
(R-39)
.
Respondent’s Exhibit 1 is a list of
bills totaling $6,946.87 for chemicals and equipment purchased
during 1971-1973 to try to abate hog odors.
Mr.
Rink said,
“I
have tried anything
I read about on the market.
I went to
England this year to check and see what they are doing for
pollution, and
I have gone anyplace in Illinois.
I have gone
to
swine seminars, and I have tried everything,
to my knowledge,
that is out”
(R-38).
Mr.
Rink submitted two pictures taken on
July 2,
1973,
(Respondent’s Exhibits 4 and
5)
to show that his
slatted floor buildings and hogs were clean.
Mr. A.
A. Wicklein, University of Illinois Agricultural
Extension Adviser in Will County, testified that he was called
in by both parties,
in
a consulting capacity,
to examine the
Rink Pig Farm and to try to develop a solution to the odor
problem.
Mr. Wicklein stated that Bob Rink has been operating
his farm in the customary agricultural fashion for raising pigs
(R-46),
the pigs are raised in a clean and good animal husbandry
fashion
(R-47)
,
and Bob attends educational meetings and is
cooperative when anything new is
to be tried.
Mr.
Richard
L.
Gahm,
a manufacturer of livestock equip-
ment from Ransom, Illinois,
testified t~hatduring the past two
years Bob Rink has helped in testing his products for odor
abatement.
One of the chemicals
is
a masking agent, and a newer
chemical
“reacts with the malodor and also adds a pleasant smell”
(R-5l).
An improved distribution system, which seems promising,
is being tried.
The Stipulation indicates that Rink “has agreed to a
progressive program for improvement of the conditions and operation
of
said pig farm,
and the same has been developed in cooperation
with and at the direction of the Agency,
it being understood that
it is the intention of the parties that Rink shall continue to
operate said pig farm and that he performs the terms of this
program in the continued operation of said farm, unless the same
is otherwise altered, amended or terminated by agreement of the
Agency and Rink.
“As a result of the discovery undertaken by the parties
and pre-hearing conferences,
each party believes that the public
interest will be best served by the resolution of the above-
entitled enforcement action under the terms and conditions herein
provided.
In accordance with the procedures
for settlement pres-
cribed by Rule
333 of the Illinois Pollution Control Board Rules
and Regulations,
the parties will offer
this statement of facts,
stipulation and attached exhibits in lieu of a full hearing.”
12—63
TERMS OF SETTLEMENT
The following “Terms of Settlement” are from the signed
document that was received by the Board on April
4,
1974.
“The parties hereby stipulate and agree that the Settle-
ment of the above-entitled enforcement action shall be as set
forth below.
This proposed settlement
is expressly conditioned
upon, and effective only with the approval thereof in all
respects of the Illinois Pollution qontrol Board;
however, Rink
has proceeded to implement its programs hereunder during the
pendency of this litigation.
The parties further stipulate
that all statements contained herein shall be null, void and of
no effect and shall not he used in any further litigation
in the
event
that, the Board fails to approve the following terms of
settlement in all respects:
A.
“That the Board shall find Respondents
in violation
of Section 9(a)
of the Environmental Protection
Act for odorous emissions;
B.
“That the Board may enter the following compliance
program to abate the odorous emissions:
1.
“Soil injection of all liquid manure unless it
is mutually agreed upon by Rink and the
Agency that soil injection of the manure
during periods of the year when the ground
is unfrozen causes more odors than spread-
ing the manure on top of the soil during
periods of the year when the soil is frozen.
2.
“Outdoor feed lots be well drained and manure
hauled at frequent intervals or be incor-
porated into the soil.
3.
“Will attempt to reduce odorous emissions from
ventilation openings,
either forced or
natural, from barns
by
utilizing either
chemical deoderizers, carbon filters, or some
other technique, with the selected process or
substance being used in accordance with
the
manufacturer’s recommended program.
Any such
process or chemical substance program shall
he deemed
to meet this requirement
if the use
of the same is agr?.~dto by the Agency.
It is
the understanding of the parties at this time
that Rink intends to use the chemical sub-
stance and manufacturer’s program for the
product known as
GAME,
which
is a chemical
masking agent.
4.
“The manure hauling schedule will be coordinated
with wind directions, and both the injection
and cleaning of pits shall be done only
when,
at the beginning of the hauling or clean—
12—64
—7—
ing day, the wind is blowing in a direction
that is away from the residences of the com-
plaining citizens living along 1-55 and the
Kankakee River.
Rink shall in no case haul
manure on
a national holiday.
Further, Rink
shall use every effort to haul only on week-
days,
unless, due to either the lack of pit
storage capacity,
or favorable wind direction
or probable inaccessability of hauling to or
in manure injecting area,
it is reasonably
necessary to haul on weekends.
Also,
Rink
will spread or inject said manure so as not
to otherwise cause an excessive concentration
of nitrogen or otherwise cause ground—water
pollution.
5.
“Rink shall provide an additional 20,000 cubic
feet of storage capacity which will bring all
existing buildings up to a minimum of 120 days
storage.
The manure storage structure shall
have a covered top to reduce odorous emissions
and the design shall be approved by the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency.
Rink shall
complete construction of said storage facilities
by August 15, 1974.
6.
“All new facilities built hereafter for pig
habitation and feeding that employ a liquid
manure system will have an aerobic manure
handling system.
7.
“In that the use of electrostatic precipitators
for odor reduction has not conclusively been
established to be effective at this time,
the
parties agree that if after all of
the above
steps have been performed, the Agency deems
that there
is still a sufficient odor pollution
condition that may possibly be alleviated or
improved by use of said electrostatic pre-
cipitators, that it may require Rink to install
and operate in one building for research pur-
poses, electrostatic precipitators in the manner
recommended by the manufacturer of electrostatic
precipitators, and upon being so ordered by the
Agency, Rink shall obtain and install said pre—
cipitators from manufacturer of his choice ~:ithin
such time thereafter as said equipment is avail-
able from the manufacturer.
The test shall be
for a period of at least six
(6) months.
The
parties agree that if said precipitators
effectively reduce and control said odors,
then
the Agency, on or after June,
1975, may require
Rink to install
said precipitators in all his
forced ventilation buildings within a reasonable
time thereafter.
12—65
—8—
8.
“It is agreed by Rink that on or after December,
1,
1973, he shall provide the Agency with a
listed telephone number that can be given to any
affected citizen so that said citizen can contact
Rink directly and register a complaint concerning
the subject of the agreement, and Rink shall,
after receiving any complaint,
endeavour to
resolve the complair.t.
The citizens are instruct-
ed that any such calls
shall be during regular
business hours of
8:00 a.m.
to 8:00 p.m. any day,
but no calls shall be accepted at other hours.
C.
“Rink hereby agrees that he shall pay the
sum
of
$500.00,
payment
to be made within thirty—five
(35)
days of the date of an Order by the Pollution Control
Board.
Payment is to be made by certified check to:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Services
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield,
Illinois 62706
D.
“That the parties hereby agree to stipulate that
Rink shall post a performance bond with the
Agency in an amount equal to construction cost
of the manure storage structure specified à~ove
in paragraph B5, and in a form satisfactory to
the Agency.
Said bond shall be posted within
thirty-five
(35) days of the date of an Order
by the Pollution Control Board and shall be sub-
mitted to the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency” at the address listed above in paragraph
C.
The issues involved in
this’ case are not easy to resolve
because there is an odor problem which has been difficult to
abate, and recent encroachment of residences into this predomin-
antly agricultural area has aggravated the problem.
It has been
adequately documented that Rink Pig Farm produces odors which are
objectionable to neighbors,
including some of long standing. How-
ever,
six of the nearest neighbors have recently moved onto a small
tract adjacent to the Rink Pig Farm buildings,
long after the pig
enterprise was in operation
(R-34)
-
Section 33(c) (3)
of the
Environmental Protection Act requires the Board in making its deter-
minations to take into account the suitability or unsuitability of
the pollution source to the area in which it is located, including
the question of priority of locatio’i in the area involved.
The
seriousness of the nuisance must be judged taking into account the
industrial and agricultural character of the area
(Environmental
Protection Agency v.
Sangamo Construction Company, 72-79,
6 PCB 83,
87, October 31,
1972).
Proper land use regulations would help re—
solve some of these problems, but the Board does not have jurisdic-
tion for zoning.
Reciprocal guidelines are needed to channel both
rural and urban development into the most productive and satisfy-
ing avenues for our entire society.
12— 66
—9—
Testimony presented indicates that the Rink Pig
Farm
is operated in a husbandlike manner and that Robert Rink has
been and is trying in good faith to find and adopt improved
methods to abate objectionable odors from his hog enterprise.
We believe that the compliance program stipulated in item
B, above, will help abate air pollution
--
the key problem in
this case.
This is an important objective and responsibility of
the Illinois Pollution Control Board.
We also believe that items
A,
C, and D,
as stipulated
in the above Terms of Settlement, are
reasonable and we accept them.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and con-
clusions of law of the Board.
ORDER
It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board
that:
1.
Respondent Rink Pig Farm violated Section 9(a) of
the Environmental Protection Act for odor emissions.
2.
Respondent shall follow the compliance program
stipulated in item B of the above Terms of Settle-
ment.
3.
Respondent Rink Pig Farm shall pay the $500.00
penalty,
as stipulated
in item C of the above Terms
of Settlement,
and shall post a performance bond
with the Environmental Protection Agency,
as
stipulated in item D of the above Terms of Settle—
ment.
Mr. Henss was not present for the vote.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was
adopted on the t~’4~dayof
_________,
1974, by a vote of
___
to
~
.
Christan L. Mofeett, Clerk
12—67
