II

I4INC)JS

POT 4L1

TION

CONTROL BOARJ)

November 8,

1972

)

EN~IItONMENTALl’RoTEcrroN

AGENCV

)

PCB 72-260

)

)

)tOJ3EltT

R.

DETERS;

FAI3TAN

.1.

DETERS;

)

MARCELLUS

1.

DETERS; ALViN

L.

DETERS;

)

WILIIAM

H.

DETERS.

JR.;

and

NORMA

MARIE

)

DETERS WEIMAN

)

)

OPiNION

&

ORDER OF

THE

BOARD

(by

Mr.

Dumelle)

This

is

an

enforcement

action

alleging that the respondents

owned,

operated

and controlled the

Deters

Dairy Farm

in

Adams County near

Quincy,

Illinois

and that on

eight

specified

dates

caused,

allowed or

threatened the

discharge

of contaminants,

including but

not limited

to

dairy product wastes

and cattle lot

runoff,

into a roadside

ditch to

an un-

named

tributary

of Curtis

Creek so as to cause water

pollution,

in

violation

of

Section

12(a)

of the Environmental

Protection

Act.

It is

further

alleged that

on the same

dates the respondents,

through

the opera-

tion

of the Farm,

caused

substances

to he present

in the tributary

producing

color,

odor and other

conditions

in such degree as to

create

a nuisance,

in violation of Rule

1. 03

(c) of the

Illinois

Sanitary Water

Board Rules

and

Regulations

of SWB-14

and

also

Rule 203

(a) of the fllinois

Water

Pollution

Regulations

(adopted March

7,

1672).

Hearing was held

on September

20,

1972

at which time the parties

filed

a Stipulation of Facts

wherein the

respondents

admitted

to the allega-

tions

in the Complaint.

The Stipulation further

contains twenty exhibits

evidencing the scope

of the problem.

The

Farm

Is located on 1,090

acres

and maintains

from 180 to 200

milk

cows.

There

are

six

family residences

of the partners,

an office and four

rented residences.

Two retail outlets

are maintained

in Quincy and

several

in the State

of Missouri.

Production

averages

from

200, 000 to

240, 000

pounds

of milk

and dairy products per

month.

6—lit

---

—2—

A~cnt’,~

inspectors

1ni~

e observed

an effluein

flow

from

the

Farm

of

10

to

20 gallons per

minute

of

a milky

white,

turbid

liquid

with lumps

of

tshile

solid

material

and billowing foam.

It has a

sour

milk odor.

f,uhoralory

unalyses

of

the

effluent have shown values

up

to 1800 mg/I

ROl),

2400 tngfl

COD,

PlO

mgIl

suspended

solids,

3,400,000

per

100

ml

of

fc’eal

c’oliform

and

11, 000, 000

for total

coliform.

Prel;ina:z~ryabatement

plans

have been submitted

to the

Agency for

commenis.

liii’ plans consist

of a

means

of collecting

all

wastes from

the

opt’r’zi;~t’:i

ml,’

a sump

and ltu~npun~)ingit

into either

a primary or

secondar~ I agooi. and

from there

it

will

be irrigated

onto agricultural

land

So

;‘s

ii:

xuini:nhze contamination

of

the waters.

If the preliminary

plans

ur~’

:,‘

ttqsi:tlilt’

then a formal

et’tnii

application

will he made,

If

the

I”:iri’i

cl.n’~

rc’.qve

a

permit

it

is

cxpec’tecl to take only

60 days to

com~)l’1

i’

ci

‘nsi

run

ion

cii’ the facilities.

W.~Iird

thai

the

violations

did

occur as alleged.

We are pleased to

see

th

.ì

..

solution

to

the problem

will

be forthcoming.

However,

as the

ohsen

:t

reins

anti analyses

indicate,

this is

a highly contaminated

effluent

whp

h

i’:,s

caused

much harm to the receiving

waters.

Group Exhibit

12.

iticiar~ninited

by reference

into the stipulation,

describes

these

effects

vi~•isIk.

“The

ditch

was

lined

with black sludge

deposits

and contained

hurl.

iic’:tvy growths and accumulations

of green

algae

and

gray

fungi

(p. 3,

1321’..

.

“the receiving

stream

flow was solid

white in color

and had a

je

odor.

The bed contained thick heavy growths

and

accumulations

•‘~enalgae

and gray

fungi

(C2,

•C3,

p. 3).”

In addition to the

harm to

~

;‘t’ctc’iving waters,

two neighbors are

quoted

in the same

exhibit as

‘laming

of had odors

from the

stream,

especially

in warm weather

~

.1).

This program,

being

based

only on

a

60-day

construction

schedule,

1(1

VasilV

have

been

completed before

now.

We must

conclude that the

I’.

:41fl)fl(k’I1l5

havc~not

proceeded

with due

diligence.

tpon

these

circumstances

w~

fund

i~uz~

a

$i000

penally

would

he

appropriate.

An

examination

of the

I’

~

r’

i’uns

discussed

below

showed that

a penalty

of this

amount

would

tuft

l,i’

4’.~iQSSi’~i’.

():u”

further

point.

Al

tin’

luc’z:ring

it was

agreed between the parties

il,ttt

lit~

re’spnnch’nts’

parinership

income tax returns

for

the years

1fl68,

‘MU’.

~f•7f)

!uuu~lI’ll

In’ admitted

into evidence

under

a protective order

for

iIu.~scrulin~‘4

hi’

l3oarcl

alone

and

not to be

made public.

We

grant

this

n.tu’,elI’fljZilJl\

i’\

191

though

procedural

rules

were

not

followed.

i’luis

I’J)Iflht’fl

constitutes

the

l3oarcl’s findings

of focI

arid

conclusions

II;

.,,‘I.

6•.~72

---

Oil I)ER

1.

The

respondents

shall

cease

arid

desist

from

all

violations

found

in

this

oujnjon

after

January

22,

lJ~73.

2.

The

respondents

shall

pa

to

the

State

of

Illinois

by

December

15,

1972

the

sum

of

~5,

000

as

a

penalty

for

the

violations

found

in

this

proceeding.

Penalty

payment

by

certified

check

or

money

order

payable

to the

State

of

Illinois

shall

be

made

to:

Fiscal

Services

Division,

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

~\eencv,

2200

Churchill

Drive,

Springfield,

Illinois

62706.

r,

Chri stun

L.

~\1offett,

Clerk

m

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board,

hereby

certify

the

above

Opinion

and

Order

were

adopted

on

the

~

day

of

i~mvenibur,

1972

by

a

vote

of

~ I

L

L

~

J

/

2)

~//~

~

~Cl~iristan

L.

Moffett,

~

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

6-~113

---