Document 7MLDGakDVpxE5J7D8L40ga6Da

CWA COMPLIANCE EVALUATION INSPECTION REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION 5 Purpose: Compliance Sampling Inspection Facility: Frankenreider Farms, LLC 28338 N 2050th Avenue Annawan, Illinois 61234 41.451772, -89.90975 NPDES Permit Number: No Permit. Integrated Compliance Information System ID: ILA000608 Date of Inspection: 05/5/2022 EPA Representatives: Cheryl Burdett, EPA Burdett.cheryl@epa.gov 312-886-1463 Jessica Stromsdorfer, EPA Stromsdorfer.jessica@epa.gov 312-886-3164 State Representatives: Benjamin Neuendorf, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Inspector Benjamin.neuendorfer@Illinois.gov Shannon Soucie, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Inspector Shannon.Soucie@Illinois.gov Facility Representatives: Shannon Frankenreider Owner/Operator Sjfrankenreider@yahoo.com 309-489-6119 Inspector Signature/ Date: CHERYL BURDETT Digitally signed by CHERYL BURDETT ____________________________D_a_te_:_2_0_22_._0_6._2_8_1_4_:0_7_:2_0_-_05_'0_0_'____ Approver Signature/Date: Bahr, Ryan Digitally signed by Bahr, Ryan ____________________________D_a_te_:_2_0_2_2_.0_6_._28__1_7_:0_7_:_48__-0_5_'_0_0'_ 1 1. BACKGROUND Frankenreider Farms, LLC May 5, 2022 The purpose of this report is to describe, evaluate and document Frankenreider Farm's (Frankenreider) compliance with the Clean Water Act (CWA) at its Annawan, Illinois Facility on May 5, 2022. This inspection was performed pursuant to Section 308(a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended. Frankenreider is a large cow/calf pair operation and finishing operation with approximately 999 finishing cattle in the Finishing Barn and another 130 cattle on a feedlot. Based on the number of animals, Frankenreider is a large Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation Illinois EPA inspected the facility on April 05, 2021. Illinois EPA identified in their inspection report that the Facility was not complying with setbacks during land application. Runoff from the Production Area flows into Spath Spur waterway which flows into Green River. Green River flows to the Rock River which flows to the Wabash River, a traditional navigable waterway. 2. SITE INSPECTION Table 1: Site Entry and Opening Conference Arrival Time: 9:15 a.m. Temperature: 60 degrees Fahrenheit Precipitation: A light mist of rain started around 9:00 AM Presented credentials? Yes Credentials presented to whom and at what time? Shannon Frankenreider 2 Frankenreider Farms, LLC May 5, 2022 The United States Environmental Protection Agency and Illinois Environmental Protection Agency arrived on May 5, 2022, at Frankenreider Farms, LLC in Henry County, Illinois at approximately 9:15 a.m. EPA donned their yellow rubber boots. EPA walked over to meet with the owner/operator Mr. Shannon Frankenreider (the Owner). After EPA presented credentials, EPA conducted their entry interview with the Owner and explained the purpose for the inspection and EPA's authority to conduct inspections at Animal Feeding Operations. EPA's authority comes from Section 308 of the Clean Water Act. EPA confirmed the number of finishing cattle in the barn was 980 with a maximum capacity of 999. They had approximately another 10 cattle in the working barn and another 130 cattle on a feedlot. There were approximately 420 cow/calf pairs on pasture. EPA explained that they needed to go through their checklist and then would need to conduct a walk-through of the Facility to determine compliance with the Clean Water Act. EPA explained if anything was determined to be Confidential, the Facility could inform EPA at that time or after the Owner received the inspection report at which time they could determine if all or parts of the inspection report should be considered Confidential Business Information (CBI). If photographs or documents were taken, The Owner did not consider any information does the facility consider any to be to be CBI at the time of the inspection. Confidential Business Information (CBI)? Which information does the At the time of inspection, the owner did not claim CBI on facility consider to be CBI? any of the photographs or information provided to EPA. EPA vehicle parked in approved location. Location where EPA vehicle was parked? Disposable boots worn? Other bio-security measures taken (state vet contacted, etc.): Yes. The Owner stated that EPA's car was in an approved location. South of the office. Yes. EPA verified with the State Veterinarian by email that there were no disease outbreaks related to beef cattle. 3 Frankenreider Farms, LLC May 5, 2022 2.1 Records Review (The following Records Review tables reflect information provided before the walk-through of the facility, unless otherwise noted.) Table 2: Documents Checklist(s) Used R5 CAFO Inspection Checklist Facility Documents Reviewed: None. Table 3: Facility Description (Owner Description) Type of Animal Number of Capacity Animals Confined Animals 980 999 Feedlot 130 Unknown Working Barn 10 Unknown Pasture 420 Unknown Minimum Number of Animals in previous 5 years: Maximum Number of Animals in previous 5 years: Number of Animals that are stabled/confined and/or fed/maintained for 45 days or more in previous 12 months: Amount of Liquid Manure Generated per year: Amount of Solid Manure Generated per year: Does the facility have an NPDES Permit? SIC or NAICS code: CAFO Designation/Defined Date (If a designated CAFO) Do animals have direct access to WOUS? Are crops, vegetation, forage growth, or postharvest residues sustained in the normal growing season over any portion of the lot or facility where animals are kept? What is the area (acres) of the production area? What is the area (acres) of the pasture? How many employees (not counting family members)? Type of Confinement Barn Unknown Barn Pasture Stays consistent. Stays consistent. Approximately 1110. Number in the feedlot varies. The Owner stated approximately two million gallons. The Owner stated very little. No NPDES Permit 0212/0211 Defined as CAFO by the size of the operation. No. Cattle are put out on crop field in the winter before crops are on the field of approximately 100 acres. The Owner stated the Production Area was approximately 10 acres. This did not include the feedlots. They also have an approximately 35-acre feedlot There are also feeders and waterers in the crop fields. Yes. Approximately 1000 acres. One employee. 4 Frankenreider Farms, LLC May 5, 2022 Other facilities under common ownership (name and address): Bill Frankenreider, the father has a separate site has two lots with approximately two cattle on one of the lots. Table 4: Livestock Waste Storage Type of Storage Type of Storage Capacity Liner Depth Markers Present Pit under Barn 2.5 million gallons 14ft. x 450 ft. x 60 ft. Concrete No depth markers Working Solids Barn Not Not applicable applicable Calving Barn Solids Not Not applicable applicable When was the last time a storage structure was emptied, either partially or completely? What amount of manure or process wastewater was removed the last time the storage structure was emptied, either partially or completely? Do the facility personnel inspect and keep records of all diversion devices? Do the facility personnel inspect and keep records of all impoundments? Last Amount of Days of Time Waste Storage Waste Removed was Removed Last fall Owner Over 365 estimated days approximately because the two million Owner gallons. stated that the pit is usually pumped out 1x per year. However, it has been pumped out in the fall and spring. Spring Owner was It is land not sure applied once a year in the spring. Spring Owner was It is land not sure applied once a year in the spring. According to the Owner, last spring the pit under the Finishing Barn was almost completely pumped out which was approximately 2.0 million gallons. Approximately 2.0 million gallons were emptied from the pit in the Finishing Barn. According to the Owner, there were no records kept on diversion structures. According to the Owner, there were no records of storage structures. 5 Do the facility personnel inspect and keep records of all the water lines? Do the facility personnel perform routine visual inspections and keep records of the production area? Does the waste storage system have a managed outfall or discharge point? Frankenreider Farms, LLC May 5, 2022 According to the Owner, he and other workers walk the Facility daily, but no records were kept of the water lines. According to the Owner, visual inspections are done as the Owner and other employees go through their daily work, but no records were kept. No. Has the facility had any documented discharges of livestock waste to surface water in the past year? Are there safety devices installed around any manure storage ponds? (Barriers at the end of manure push off platforms, fences around pond, signage.) Additional Information: According to the Owner, they have not had any discharges to waters of the United States. According to the Owner, the storage structure is an underground pit under the Finishing Barn. No. Table 5: Livestock Waste Management Describe the way manure is collected and disposed of at the facility: According to the Owner, the cattle in the Finishing Barn are on slotted floors. The manure from the pit is pumped out using a drag line and applied to the fields. There is no bedding used within the Finishing Barn. Describe the way used bedding is collected and disposed of at the facility: According to the Owner, in the calving barn straw and corn stalks are used for bedding. The calving barn is scraped with a front-end loader and applied to crop fields. The Owner stated that the calving barn is cleaned out in the spring and applied to the crop fields when the fields are dry enough to get out on to the crop fields. According to the Owner, the mortality records are on the computer, The Owner Are mortality records kept? stated that when there is a mortality, it is subtracted from the number of cattle or cow/calf pair. Describe the way mortalities are managed at the facility: According to the Owner, the mortalities stay where they were found, and a renderer usually comes the same day they are called. What type of method is used to provide According to the Owner, the waterers for drinking water for the animals? the cattle in the barns and out in the feedlots are on a float system and the (Drinkers with float system? Nipple water comes from a well. waters? If nipple waters, is backflow prevention installed?) Describe the way spilled drinking water is collected and disposed of at the facility: 6 Frankenreider Farms, LLC May 5, 2022 According to the Owner, spilled water in the Finishing Barn goes into the pit with the manure. The spilled waterers out in the feedlots spill on to the ground. Describe the way mist cooling water is collected and disposed of at the facility: There is no mist cooling system. Describe how chemicals are stored and how used or spilled chemicals are collected and disposed of at the facility: Chemicals are not stored on-site. Describe the way water that has been used to wash/flush barns are collected and disposed of at the facility: There is no water used to clean the barns. Describe where water comes from that is used to clean and/or flush. (Wells, city, etc.) Not applicable. Describe the way feed is contained and how runoff from feed is collected and disposed of at the facility: Feed is contained in the silage bunker and in feed bags. There is no containment for the process wastewater. Table 6: Land Application and Disposal of Manure and Process Wastewater Does the facility perform and keep records of the The Owner is not sure if there manure testing? are records for manure testing. When was the last time a sample was taken of the The Owner is not sure when manure and/or process wastewater? the last time manure was tested. Describe the process to take the manure and/or Not Applicable. process wastewater sample. Number of acres available for land application: Are land application records kept? Who applies the manure and process wastewater to the fields? Are weather conditions at time of application kept? (24 before - 24 after) Does the facility perform and keep records of the soil testing? According to the Owner, the Facility has approximately 1500 acres with approximately 750 rented fields. The Operator is not sure of where or if land application records are kept. The manure application is contracted out to a third party. No. The Owner stated that they do not record the weather prior to land application or after land application. The Owner stated that some of the crop fields owned by the Facility have had soil tests but 7 Frankenreider Farms, LLC May 5, 2022 did not have the records available at the time of the inspection. Is manure transferred off-site to another party? Are manure transfer records maintained? Do facility personnel perform periodic inspection of land application equipment? Yes. No records of sales or the manure that is given away. No. The Owner contracts out the land application. Table 7: Receiving Surface Waters Describe the surface flow pathways: There is surface flow off the feedlots that flows by gravity to Spath Spur waterway. Spath Spur waterway flows west then north under Highway 78 through a culvert and continues northwest to the Green River to the Rock River to the Wabash River, a traditional navigable waterway. At the time of the inspection, EPA observed flow within Spath Spur to Highway 78, but EPA did not observe flow from Spath Spur waterway going through the culvert. According to the Owner, the city installed a lip on the culvert that is too high and the flow within Spath Spur waterway now backs up in the fields on the east side of Frankenreider Farm, LLC, instead of flowing through the culvert. The owner had called the city to see if they can lower the lip on the culvert to allow flow, so the water does not back up into the fields. How many months out of the year is According to the Owner, water is usually there flow in the nearest surface water continuously within Spath Spur waterway pathway: due to it being backed up at the culvert that flows under Highway 78. The Owner stated that water does go through the culvert under Highway 78, but only at a trickle. Are there any storm water pathways entering the facility? Yes. EPA observed that storm water from the roadside ditch on 2050th Avenue flows through the Facility's feed storage area and into a grassy area that flows through a culvert under an access road on the property to another low area. It flows through a pathway within the facility to the feedlot/crop field. Are there any clean water ponds on No. site? What is the name of the first waterway Green River to the Rock River to the that is identified as a Traditional Wabash River, a traditional navigable Navigable Water (TNW) for surface waterway. flow from the facility? Is the surface water pathway nearest to Spath Spur waterway is an intermittent the facility considered to be ephemeral, waterway. intermittent, or perennial? 8 Has the surface water pathway nearest No. to the facility been assessed for water quality? Frankenreider Farms, LLC May 5, 2022 Table 8: Nutrient Management Plan NMP on site? The Owner did not have a Nutrient Management Plan (NMP). Date NMP Submitted: Not Applicable. Planner Name/Company: Not Applicable. Date that the NMP was last Not Applicable. updated: Storage Description: The Owner did not have a description, but the Finishing Barn was built in 2018. He stated that he would have to locate the plans. Amount of Manure Generated: This is not documented. Capacity of Storage: This information was provided by the Owner, he believes he can find the as-builts with the size of the pit. Duration of Storage: The Owner stated that they have over one year of storage since they usually empty the storage structure in the fall. Amount of Spreadable Land: According to the Owner, the Facility has approximately 1500 acres with approximately 750 rented fields. Mortality Management Plan: The Owner stated they do not have a Mortality Management Plan. Clean Water Diversion System: The Owner does not have a Clean Water Diversion System Direct Contact Prevention The Owner does not have a Direct Contact Plan: Prevention Plan. EPA observed cattle prints around Spath Spur waterway, but the areas are fenced off, so cattle are mostly kept out of Spath Spur. Chemical Management Plan: The Owner stated that he does not have a Chemical Management Plan. Conservation Practices: The Owner stated that he does not have Conservation Practices. Manure Testing Protocols: The Owner stated that he does not have protocols for collecting samples from the Finishing Barn pit or from the solids of the calving barn or working barn. Soil Testing Protocols: The Owner stated that he does not have soil testing protocols. Land Application Protocols: The Owner stated he does not have written land application protocols but knows the size of field and number of gallons applied per acre. 9 Additional NMP comments: Does the NMP reflect the current operational characteristics? Are the number of acres owned/leased consistent with what is listed in the NMP? None. Not Applicable. Not Applicable. Frankenreider Farms, LLC May 5, 2022 Table 9: Land Application Records (details of the records reviewed) Fields available for application this year: The Owner stated there were no records to review for land application. Table 11: NPDES Permit Type of permit (General, individual) No Permit. 2.2 Walkthrough of the Facility EPA, Illinois EPA, and the Facility Representative (We) started the walk-through on the south side of the office. We walked west on the south side of the Finishing Barn. EPA observed a hole in the concrete wall on the west side of the concrete lot of the Finishing Barn. EPA observed eroded pathways from the hole and along the bank on the west side of the concrete lot to the crop field where storm water and process wastewater pooled. At the time of the inspection, EPA did not observe flow under 2050th Avenue to the wetland area. We continued the walk-around on the west side of the production area to the north. According to the Owner, cattle were moved from the crop field, west of the Facility which was used as a winter feedlot. We continued to walk and observe cow/calf pairs in the pasture northwest of the Facility east of Highway 78. EPA observed an unnamed waterway to the northwest which flowed through a culvert to the east into Spath Spur waterway. We walked back to the south and then to the east along Spath Spur waterway. We walked along the north side of Spath Spur waterway. EPA observed water within Spath Spur waterway. The feedlot along the north side of Spath Spur waterway showed runoff from the feedlot into Spath Spur waterway. We continued to walk east along the south side of Spath Spur waterway. EPA observed to the south the denuded bagged feed and hay storage area. EPA observed runoff from the feedlot on the north side of Spath Spur waterway into the waterway (P5050050). We walked on the south side of Spath Spur waterway where EPA observed a pipe that drains water on the north side of the denuded feed bag and hay storage area and south of Spath Spur water. EPA observed the pipe outlet which drains into Spath Spur waterway (P5050053 -P5050056). EPA continued to observe water within Spath Spur waterway as we walked east along the North Access Road. We continued to walk east along Spath Spur waterway and observed a feedlot south of Spath Spur waterway and east of the denuded bagged feed and hay storage area. EPA observed additional feedlots on the north side of Spath Spur waterway and northwest of the barns. 10 Frankenreider Farms, LLC May 5, 2022 We continued to walk east where a bridge goes over Spath Spur waterway. We continued to walk east along Spath Spur waterway. EPA observed areas east of the bridge where runoff from the feedlots drain and crop fields runoff into Spath Spur waterway (P5050064, P5050066, P5050067, P5050068, and P5050069). We walked along the feedlot to the south. EPA observed that the Feedlots both north and south of Spath Spur waterway showed signs of discharging to Spath Spur waterway. We walked south along the fence line of the feedlot on the south side of Spath Spur waterway and east of the bridge. EPA observed runoff from the feedlot into the grassy area north of the silage bunkers. We walked west north of the silage bunkers where EPA observed a concrete channel off the concrete pad which was part of the silage bunkers and the Finishing Barn. EPA observed storm water from the roadside ditch flow through the center of the concrete pad down the concrete channel to low grassy area south of the concrete pad. Process wastewater and storm water collected in the low grassy area flows through a culvert that runs under the center access road to a low grassy on the west side of the Center Access Road. It flows to a drainage channel to the west that conveys flow to the north through the denuded bagged feed and hay storage area. EPA did not observe flow to Spath Spur waterway. EPA walked back to the east side of the bridge along Spath Spur waterway and collected a sample on the east side of the bridge within the waterway and on the west side of the bridge within Spath Spur waterway. EPA observed water within Spath Spur waterway from the Facility to Highway 78. The Owner stated that water within Spath Spur backed up due to the concrete culvert under Highway 78 and EPA did not observe water flowing through the culvert at the time of the inspection. The Owner has spoken to Illinois EPA and the county to request that they fix the culvert so water can flow through and not back up into the pasture and the crop field east of the Facility. 2.3 Closing Conference and Post-Inspection EPA went back to the Facility and explained to the Owner that EPA was not able to collect a sample at Spath Spur waterway due to the fence and because there was no flow going through the culvert at the time of the inspection. EPA went through the following areas of concern with the Owner: 1. EPA explained that the hole in the concrete wall to the west of the Finishing Barn attached to an outside feedlot. EPA was concerned with the runoff from this area and the erosion that is occurring on the berm. 11 Frankenreider Farms, LLC May 5, 2022 2. EPA was concerned that the Facility did not have a Nutrient Management Plan or any of the records available documenting their land application of manure. The Owner stated that he may have some of the records but would need time to look for them. On May 18 and May 25, EPA sent emails to the Owner with a list of records. The Owner did not send the records. 3. EPA's observation that areas along Spath Spur waterway had runoff from the feedlots on both sides of the Spath Spur waterway. 4. EPA was concerned about the runoff from the feedlots that flowed to the low grassy area south of the concrete pad attached to the Silage Bunker and the Finishing Barn. It was designed that the process wastewater flowed through a culvert to the west side of the Center Access Road where it flowed to a channel that flowed north through the denuded area where feed bags and hay bales were stored. EPA asked the Owner to choose his samples and EPA provided the Owner with a chain of custody. EPA explained that the report would be completed within 60 days, and he should receive a copy within 70 days. Table 12: Post Walk-Through Were specific Areas of Concern discussed with facility personnel? Yes. Who were the Areas of Concern discussed with? The Owner. Were any deficiencies or areas of concern addressed or fixed during the inspection? If so, list what was done. EPA did not observe any of the areas of concern being addressed at the time of the inspection. Compliance assistance materials given to facility personnel: No, compliance assisntance materials were provided at the time of the inspection. Exit Time: Approximately 1:30 p.m. Disposable Boots Left at Facility? Yes. Table 13: Waterway Documentation List the pathway taken by EPA inspectors to document the waterway at the facility. EPA walked along south side of Spath Spur waterway and observed runoff pathways from the feedlot to the north into Spath Spur west of bridge. EPA observed discharge pathways from the crop field to north and the feedlots to the south into Spath Spur waterway. EPA documented that Spath Spur waterway had water in it to Highway 78. Table 14a: Sampling Information Were samples taken? Were samples split with facility? Number of samples taken? Was a trip blank created (done prior to entering the facility)? Identify which sample is the trip blank. Yes. Yes. Two. No. No Trip Blank. 12 Frankenreider Farms, LLC May 5, 2022 Were field duplicate samples taken (1 duplicate per 20 samples)? Identify which sample(s) is/are the field duplicate(s) Were equipment blanks taken (if more than one type of equipment was used to collect samples)? Identify which samples were equipment blanks. List chain of custody for fecal coliform samples: Location where samples were preserved: Name of people involved with sample preservation: Time of sample preservation: Were samples shipped to a lab? Name/Address of shipping location: Date and time that samples were dropped off for shipping: Did all inspectors involved with the sampling sign the chain of custody? Weather conditions at the time of sample collection: Camera name and type used to photograph sample collection: No. Not Applicable. No. Not Applicable. E. coli samples and Chain of Cust was filled out and provided to Lyons Laboratory in Stockton, Illinois. Due to holding time for E. coli, samples were preserved onsite. Cheryl Burdett 13:30 No. Not Applicable. Not Applicable Yes. Raining. Olympus Tough F2.0 13 Table 14b: Facility Sample Information Number Name Location Date S01 Northeast At the May 5, of Spath Facility, in 2022 Spur the back of waterway the vehicle. S02 Northwest At the May 5, of Spath Facility, in 2022 Spur waterway the back of the vehicle. Time 12:00 p.m. Collector CB Color/ Smell Dark Brown Photo # P5050082 Photographer CB Method of Collection Grab # Of Sulfuric Acid Ampoules 40 12:15 CB p.m. Dark Brown P5050083 CB Grab 40 Name of Laboratory where fecal coliform/E. coli samples were taken Lyons Laboratory in Stockton, Illinois. Name of Laboratory where nutrients and general chemistry samples were taken EPA Region 5 (ASB) Laboratory Table 14c: Facility Sample Results Number Name Date Time E. coli NitrateNitrite Total Phosphorus AmmoniaNitrogen TKN Total Dissolved Solids S01 Northeast 5/5/2022 12:00 p.m. 39,726 U Feedlot 22.8 10.3 38 1120 S02 Northwest 5/5/2022 12:15 p.m. 20,294 U Feedlot 21.5 10.6 37 926 Total Suspended Solids 85 536 14