ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

February 19, 2009

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

Complainant,

v.

BRENT SPECKHART d/b/a BRENT

SPECKHART SWINE FARM,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

PCB 09-56

(Enforcement - Water)

ORDER OF THE BOARD (by G.T. Girard):

On February 3, 2009, the Office of the Attorney General, on behalf of the People of the State of

Illinois (People), filed a three-count complaint (Complaint) against Brent Speckhart, doing

business as Brent Speckhart Swine Farm (Respondent). The complaint concerns respondent’s

swine farm facility (facility) located in the northeast corridor of Section 23, Township 3 South,

Range 8 West, in Adams County. The parties now seek to settle without a hearing. For the

reasons below, the Board accepts the complaint as meeting the applicable content requirements

of the Board’s procedural rules.

See

35 Ill. Adm. Code 103.204. The Board further directs the

Clerk to provide public notice of the parties’ stipulation, proposed settlement, and request for

relief from the hearing requirement.

Under the Environmental Protection Act (Act) (415 ILCS 5 (2006)), the Attorney

General and the State’s Attorneys may bring actions before the Board on behalf of the People to

enforce Illinois’ environmental requirements.

See

415 ILCS 5/31 (2006); 35 Ill. Adm. Code 103.

In this case, the People allege that respondent Speckhart violated Sections 12(a), 12(d), and 12(f)

of the Act, (415 ILCS 5/12(a), (d), and (f) (2006)), and Sections 501.404(c)(3) and

501.404(c)(4)(A) of the Board’s Agriculture Related Pollution Regulations (35 Ill. Adm. Code

501.404(c)(3) and 501.404(c)(4)(A)). Comp. at 5-9.

Specifically, the People allege that respondent Speckhart violated the provisions of the

Act and Board’s regulations by discharging livestock waste upon the land so as to allow

contaminants to drain into waters of the state; depositing livestock waste upon the land so as to

create water pollution; discharging contaminants into the waters of the state from a point source

without a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit; failing to maintain lagoon

levels such that there was adequate storage capacity to prevent an overflow; and, by failing to

take proper measures to handle the volume of waste in the facility’s two-cell lagoon.

On February 3, 2009, the People and respondent Speckhart also filed a stipulation and

proposed settlement, accompanied by a request for relief from the hearing requirement of Section

31(c)(1) of the Act (415 ILCS 5/31(c)(1) (2006)). This filing is authorized by Section 31(c)(2)

of the Act (415 ILCS 5/31(c)(2) (2006)), which requires that the public have an opportunity to

request a hearing whenever the State and a respondent propose settling an enforcement action

---