2
    1 MS. MANNING: Good morning every one.
    2 Welcome to this our Illinois Pollution Control Board in
    3 the matter formally entitled: In the matter of:
    4 Livestock Waste regulations, 35 Illinois Administration
    5 Code 506. My name is Claire Manning and I'm chairman of
    6 the Illinois Pollution Control Board.
    7 Before we begin formally our proceeding this
    8 morning, I would like to take the opportunity to explain
    9 a little bit about the Pollution Control Board, explain a
    10 little bit about our proceeding today and role of the
    11 government in this particular proceedings.
    12 First of all, I'd like to take this moment to
    13 explain a little bit about the Pollution Control Board,
    14 it's comprised of seven board members, all of whom are
    15 acquainted with the consent of the senate. Four of ours
    16 are here today investigating really the importance of the
    17 regulations of the state of Illinois. It's rare we have
    18 four board members present at any one of our hearings.
    19 To my left is Dr. Ron
    Flemal, who is
    20 presiding board member of this manner. To my right is
    21 Dr. Tanner
    Girard, Jerseyville. To Tanner's right,
    22 senior board member, Theodore
    Meyer. So the four of us
    23 are board members and we'll be making a decision
    24 ultimately in this matter proposed by the Department of
    3
    1 Agriculture. There are three others of us in our Chicago
    2 office who are busy today, but will be voting on the
    3 ultimate rules.
    4 This morning, I'd like to just explain also a
    5 little bit about what this proceeding is all about, who
    6 is here and that -- that sort of thing. Obviously, we're
    7 here to develop regulations pursuant to the Livestock
    8 Management Facilities Act. The livestock management
    9 facilities
    preciprative government within the Department
    10 of Agriculture, led by
    Chet Boruff and other state
    11 governments, the Illinois EPA, the Illinois Resources and
    12 Illinois Health Department. Those four representatives
    13 are here and will be testifying this morning and
    14 explaining the rule proposal to you.
    15 In addition to their proposal to the
    16 Pollution Control Board, we have various members of the
    17 board, and I'd like to explain to you a little bit about
    18 how we're going to deal with this proceeding.
    19 First of all, two really important women this
    20 morning, one is our court reporter. Our court reporter
    21 is probably one of the most important people because she
    22 is developing a record of what we do and say. We base
    23 our opinion on all the testimony, good sound science and
    24 questions from the public and that sort of thing. So
    4
    1 every word that we say is written down. It is very
    2 important when you want to question one of the witnesses,
    3 that you do so from the podium, that you make your
    4 question clear because she will be writing down
    5 everything that we say so that we can then understand it.
    6 Those of you who are interested in our
    7 proceeding, our hearings in Galesburg, in Jacksonville
    8 and in Mr. Vernon, we have a web site on the
    internet and
    9 you can download our transcript from our proceeding from
    10 those hearings by contacting our web site. We have a
    11 blue folder, if you want to connect in to our web site.
    12 You can have information about this particular proceeding
    13 by doing that.
    14 The other important lady I want to introduce
    15 this morning, our hearing officer. This woman controls
    16 the proceedings,
    Audrey Lozuk-Lawless, she's one of the
    17 attorneys with the board. She is the gatekeeper. She
    18 tells us whose turn it is to testify and that sort of
    19 thing.
    Audrey is our hearing officer.
    20 The other people from the board, Marie
    21
    Tipsord, attorney, assistant to Dr.
    Flemal. Cynthia
    22
    Ervin, attorney to the chairman. Chuck
    Feinen, attorney.
    23 To his right, K.C.
    Poulos. Richard
    McGill. Anand Rao,
    24 one of our technical people. To his right, John Cross,
    5
    1 legislative liaison. And Mike Wallace, one of our
    2 hearing officers as well. The board is actually small,
    3 35 employees actually. So you can see with all the
    4 people that are here, we're really giving this a lot of
    5 attention because we have half of our office here today.
    6 With those remarks, the final thing I would
    7 like to say, when we do develop this rule and act upon
    8 the proposal by the Illinois Department of Agriculture,
    9 the board has in recent years in all its rule making,
    10 attempted and
    strived for regulatory flexibility, while
    11 at the same time trying to provide for the utmost that's
    12 possible within the confines of regulatory. We'll do so
    13 in the parameters of the Livestock Facilities Act. We'll
    14 strive, as I said, for the utmost environmental
    15 protection, and that is our initiative today and that's
    16 what we'll be trying to do.
    17 Those of you who have signed up to testify,
    18 we'll look forward to hearing your testimony. During
    19 your breaks, if you would like to talk to the hearing
    20 officer, feel free to do that. Thank you. You may
    21 begin,
    Audrey.
    22
    23 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you, Chairman
    24 Manning. My name is
    Audrey Lozuk-Lawless, I am the
    6
    1 hearing officer in this matter. Today's regulation was
    2 proposed by the Department of Agriculture on November 22,
    3 1996. And what we'll do today, as far as the proceedings
    4 go, we'll start out with each of the agencies who are
    5 seated in the front, that would be the Department of
    6 Agriculture, the Department of Natural Resource, the
    7 Illinois Environmental Protection Agency and the
    8 Department of Public Health, give their summaries of what
    9 has happened over the last four hearings and their
    10 position on the proposal which is before the board today.
    11 After each one of those agencies has given
    12 their summaries, then they will be entering exhibits
    13 which have been requested along these several hearings
    14 we've had in the past and entering other exhibits that
    15 are relevant. After they've entered those exhibits, I
    16 will ask if there are people in the audience that have
    17 questions of any of those witnesses that are up here
    18 today. And if you do have a question, please just raise
    19 your hand and wait till I acknowledge you. When I
    20 acknowledge you, I will ask you to come forward to that
    21 podium over there, and state in a clear voice so that the
    22 court reporter can accurately transcribe in the record
    23 what your name is, how you spell it, if you represent any
    24 group or agency, and then you can go ahead and ask a
    7
    1 question. At that time, we'll be allowing questioning of
    2 those agencies but we'll not allow testimony. So if you
    3 do start to give testimony, I will probably have to stop
    4 you and ask you to wait until later when we allow
    5 testimony from the members of the public.
    6 After we have allowed that questioning, then
    7 we'll go to hear the testimony of those persons who have
    8 pre-filed testimony with the board, because the board's
    9 hearings are governed by procedural rules which are set
    10 out in the board's procedural rule book. So therefore,
    11 we allow pre-filed testimony, those who contacted the
    12 board to testify to go first, and then we go to everyone
    13 on the list. Just so that you know, that those people
    14 who then I will call will be sworn in. They will also be
    15 subject to cross questioning from any members of the
    16 audience or any of the agencies.
    17 After we have finished with those people,
    18 then I will go in the back room and we have a sign up
    19 sheet if anyone wants to testify that didn't get the
    20 opportunity to pre-file their testimony, and then we'll
    21 get to all of those people, who will also be sworn in and
    22 subject to cross questioning.
    23 If you want to participate today but you do
    24 not want to be sworn in or subject to cross questioning,
    8
    1 then I will encourage that you file a public comment with
    2 the board, and we give you the address later, and you can
    3 pick up anyone's card, file it with the board by November
    4 14th, before it has to be received. Oh, excuse me,
    5 February 14th, the board has to receive all public
    6 comments. So if you want to do that, certainly feel
    7 welcome to do so, and you wouldn't be sworn in today or
    8 subject to cross questioning.
    9 I'd also like to know if -- when I do
    10 recognize you, when you come forward to ask a question
    11 and you do start to give testimony, if it seems like I
    12 can stop you and wait for your testimony later, that's
    13 what I'm going to do. If it turns out you're giving some
    14 sentences, I just may swear you in right there, okay,
    15 just to let you know.
    16
    17 MS. FRITZ: I had a piece of paper over
    18 there.
    19
    20 MR. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Yes. Like I said before,
    21 we'll be getting to those people. But I understand what
    22 you're saying, you have pre-filed, I was just unaware
    23 that you were coming to this hearing. So we'll put you
    24 with the pre-filed people. I appreciate her bring that
    9
    1 up.
    2 Please don't stand up and blurt out
    3 something. There's a lot of people here and I don't want
    4 it to get out of control. Thank you.
    5
    6 MR. FLEMAL: I want to join in the welcome.
    7 It's good to see large interest for the subject we have
    8 before you today. I assure you it's important for us to
    9 have your input so we can make the best and most
    10 important decision on this that we can.
    11 As it's been noted, this is our fifth hearing
    12 already. We're well into the subject matter on this
    13 proceeding. And to try to assist those of you who may be
    14 coming into the process at the moment, we've placed on
    15 the table behind us a number of documents, that as we
    16 progress through the day, you might want to be looking
    17 at.
    18 I would like to call one of those in
    19 particular, board's first notice of opinion and order on
    20 this matter, it's a document that was dated December 5th,
    21 1996. On that date, the board, in compliance with
    22 regulations as to how we go about statute, about how we
    23 go about adopting regulations, produced for public
    24 awareness the text on proposed rule that we're talking
    10
    1 about today. You'll find, as we proceed through the
    2 hearing, people are going to be referring to, just for
    3 example, 506.301; if you're wondering what it is, in fact
    4 subject matter as documented has the full text of the
    5 rule and will let you know what that happens to be.
    6 There are other items there as well the
    7 public participation that the board puts out, that will
    8 allow you to understand a little bit more about the
    9 board's situation. Today we're engaged in rule making,
    10 protesting several activities that the board engages in.
    11
    12 MS. MANNING: Is there a state or local that
    13 would like to be introduced? Somebody from the Champaign
    14 County Board may be joining us later.
    15
    16 AUDIENCE MEMBER: I am a board member.
    17
    18 MS. MANNING: Okay, welcome again.
    19
    20 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: I would like to refer --
    21 Mr.
    Flemal referred to the board's orders; I as the
    22 hearing officer, I will put up for -- a sign up for
    23 notice list. I'm sure several of you are on the notice
    24 list, but I will put that out if anyone would like to
    11
    1 receive any of the board's orders as part of the
    2 proceeding.
    3 If you're sworn in and testifying, we'll
    4 accept all information, as long as it is relevant to the
    5 procedure and not repetitious according to the board's
    6 procedure rule. If you would like to swear them in.
    7
    8 (Panel sworn in.)
    9
    10 MR. BORUFF: Good morning, chairman Manning
    11 and members of the Illinois Pollution Control Board. My
    12 name is
    Chet Boruff and I am employed by the Illinois
    13 Department of Agriculture as Deputy Director for the
    14 Division of Natural Resources.
    15 At today's hearing, I will be offering a
    16 summary of the written testimony which the Illinois
    17 Department of Agriculture entered into evidence with the
    18 Pollution Control Board at its hearing in Jacksonville.
    19 At that time, two other employees of the Illinois
    20 Department of Agriculture, Scott Frank and Warren
    Goetsch
    21 to my left, also presented testimony relative to the
    22 proposed rules. Mr. Frank and Mr.
    Goetsch will
    23 not be providing a summary today, but will be available
    24 for questioning as the hearing proceeds.
    12
    1 Illinois has long been recognized as one of
    2 the leading livestock producing states in the nation.
    3 Due to its access to abundant feed supplies, strong
    4 markets and a well developed infrastructure, the Illinois
    5 livestock industry has been a major contributor to the
    6 state's overall economy. Livestock production accounts
    7 for a sizable portion of the state's total gross
    8 agricultural economy, and several types of livestock
    9 species are produced in the state.
    10 The livestock industry is undergoing major
    11 changes in structure, due to economic and marketing
    12 forces, which are not unique to Illinois. As a result,
    13 it has become common for many operations to expand,
    14 specialize and invest in capital intensive production
    15 units in recent years. The livestock industry has been
    16 faced with challenges regarding market structure, access
    17 to capital, a limited supply of trained employees and
    18 increased regulations. In many cases, in Illinois as
    19 well as other states, traditional and long established
    20 livestock producers have chosen to leave the industry
    21 rather to address the challenges I just listed.
    22 In an effort to strengthen the industry and
    23 position Illinois to be a continuing leader in livestock
    24 production, Governor Edgar convened the Livestock
    13
    1 Industry Task Force in July of 1995. The task force has
    2 addressed a wide range of topics focusing on areas of
    3 economic development, marketing technology transfer and
    4 environmental concerns regarding livestock production.
    5 Its recommendations have dealt with a number of issues,
    6 including concerns addressed at today's hearing.
    7 These recommendations were taken into
    8 consideration by the legislative sponsors of the bills,
    9 which eventually became the Livestock Management
    10 Facilities Act. This is intended to be preventive in
    11 nature, since Illinois currently has statutes in place to
    12 deal with situations once pollution has occurred. The
    13 act sets in place regulations providing for the proper
    14 siting, construction, operation and management of
    15 livestock management facilities and associated waste
    16 handling structures. It is the intent, and quoting from
    17 the act, "To maintain an economically viable livestock
    18 industry in the state of Illinois while protecting the
    19 environment for the benefit of both the livestock
    20 producer and persons who live in the vicinity of the
    21 livestock production facility."
    22 Section 55 of the act established a Livestock
    23 Management Facilities Advisory Committee made up of the
    24 directors of the Department of Agriculture, Natural
    14
    1 Resources, Public Health and the Illinois Environmental
    2 Protection Agency or their designees. I was designated
    3 by Director
    Doyle to serve as the chair of the committee.
    4 The members of the committee were charged to review,
    5 evaluate and make recommendations to the Department of
    6 Agriculture for rules necessary for implementation of the
    7 Livestock Management Facilities Act.
    8 The committee met five times during the
    9 Summer and Fall of 1996 to review, evaluate and recommend
    10 amendments to various draft proposals developed by the
    11 department. The departments and agency represented on
    12 the committee provided a vast amount of professional
    13 knowledge and experience on a broad spectrum of topics
    14 pertinent to this issue. The department recognizes them
    15 for their efforts and appreciates their recommendations
    16 and input throughout the rule proposal that they have put
    17 in this process. The committee considered several
    18 sources of information, such as technical papers,
    19 published design standards, pertinent information from
    20 other states and information provided by industry and
    21 private sources as it made recommendations to the
    22 department regarding rule proposal.
    23 In the Fall of 1996, as the advisory
    24 committee was meeting to develop the proposed rules,
    15
    1 concerns were raised to the general assembly regarding
    2 the absence of regulations, since the permanent rules
    3 have not been adopted. As a result, our department
    4 developed and proposed to the board an emergency rule
    5 pertaining to portions of the Livestock Management
    6 Facilities Act, namely lagoon registration, livestock
    7 facility siting, waste lagoon design criteria, waste
    8 management plans and certified livestock manager training
    9 and certification. The board adopted these emergency
    10 rules on October 31st, 1996. These rules are currently
    11 in place until such time as the board adopts the
    12 permanent rules.
    13 I want to briefly summarize the rules which
    14 we have proposed to the board. Subpart A sets forth the
    15 applicability,
    severability, definitions and
    16
    incorporations by reference for the rule proposal. This
    17 subpart follows concepts developed and include in the
    18 emergency rules adopted by the board under Docket R97-14.
    19 All but six terms defined within the section have been
    20 taken directly from the Livestock Management Facilities
    21 Act. Definitions proposed in the rules will further
    22 clarify concepts necessary for the enforcement of the
    23 regulations. An important issue relative to the timing
    24 of the application of setbacks needs clarification, and
    16
    1 the department respectfully requests that the board
    2 consider a further clarification of this important
    3 matter.
    4 Subpart B of the proposal is organized into
    5 eight major sections and outlines the approach required
    6 of owners and operators of new or modified livestock
    7 waste lagoons for the registration, design, construction,
    8 closure and ownership transfer of such facilities. The
    9 proposal closely follows the emergency rules adopted by
    10 the board. This subpart takes into consideration site
    11 specific investigation, which is to be performed by the
    12 owner prior to registration and construction. Design
    13 criteria is based upon recognized design parameters
    14 established by either the American Society of
    15 Agricultural Engineers or the United States Department of
    16 Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service. This
    17 subpart establishes criteria for lagoon
    berms, monitoring
    18 wells, liners, lagoon closure and ownership transfers.
    19 Subpart C deals with waste management plans.
    20 The application of livestock waste to the land is one of
    21 the oldest forms of recycling, and livestock waste has
    22 been used for generations to supply nutrients for growing
    23 crops. When properly applied, livestock waste can be a
    24 valuable resource; however, improper application can have
    17
    1 a negative impact on surface and ground water, as well as
    2 detrimental effects to the soil. Subpart C outlines the
    3 factors to be considered by a livestock producer when
    4 preparing a waste management plan specific to their
    5 operation. Many livestock producers in Illinois have had
    6 waste management plans prior to the development of the
    7 Livestock Management Facilities Act in an effort to
    8 provide sound stewardship of soil resources while using
    9 animal manure as a valuable agronomic resource. The
    10 Illinois Department of Agriculture intends to further
    11 detail the criteria to be used by a livestock producer
    12 when developing their waste management plan. When
    13 completed, this subpart will outline the information
    14 necessary to complete a waste management plan by
    15 establishing criteria for crop nutrient values, crop
    16 yields, nitrogen availability and proper disposal methods
    17 for livestock waste.
    18 Subpart D provides details for the
    19 establishment of certified livestock management program
    20 intended to enhance the management skills of the
    21 livestock industry in critical areas such as
    22 environmental awareness, safety concerns, odor control
    23 techniques and technology, and the development of manure
    24 management plans.
    18
    1 Subpart E of the proposed rules deals with
    2 penalties associated with violations of three areas of
    3 the act, namely lagoon registration and certification,
    4 certified livestock manager status and waste management
    5 plans. This subpart is primarily devoted to cease and
    6 desist orders listed as penalties within the act.
    7 Subpart F deals with financial responsibility
    8 and relates to section 17 of the Livestock Management
    9 Facilities Act. The intent of this section to ensure
    10 that in the event of a closure of a lagoon associated
    11 with a livestock management facility, the cost of that
    12 closure shall be borne by the owner of the lagoon versus
    13 a unit of local government. Section 17 of the Livestock
    14 Management Facilities Act outlines surety instruments
    15 which may be used to ensure financial responsibility.
    16 With the concurrence of the Pollution Control Board, the
    17 Illinois Department of
    Agrigulture intends to adopt rules
    18 and procedures in a separate rule making process pursuant
    19 to the Illinois Administrative Procedures Act.
    20 Subpart G deals with setback distances, which
    21 are intended to protect air quality and to control odors
    22 which result from livestock production, but may be
    23 offensive to neighbors of those individual operations.
    24 It's very likely that any livestock operation, regardless
    19
    1 of size, will generate some level of odor by the very
    2 nature of the operation. Many factors contribute to the
    3 level of odor resulting from a livestock operation. The
    4 intent of establishing setback distances is to provide
    5 for a dilution effect, which will lessen odors coming
    6 from a livestock operation before they reach surrounding
    7 persons or homes.
    8 In summary, clearly the issues which we face
    9 are complex, have far reaching impacts and are not easy
    10 to resolve. As discussions have been held at several
    11 locations around the state over the last year and a half,
    12 two main themes have emerged regarding livestock
    13 production in the state of Illinois.
    14 First, is one of providing protection for the
    15 environment and natural resources of our state. This
    16 concern is not unique to Illinois, and other states have
    17 dealt with the same issues in a variety of ways. The
    18 rules which we have proposed, will serve to reinforce the
    19 preventive nature of the Livestock Management Facilities
    20 Act as intended by the Illinois General Assembly. The
    21 proposed rules take into account the most current design
    22 standards and criteria, scientific information and
    23 production practices to ensure that the natural resources
    24 of Illinois are protected.
    20
    1 Another theme has developed, which relates to
    2 the social and economic changes occurring within the
    3 livestock industry. Much has been said about protecting
    4 the family farm and restricting the size of
    mega-farms as
    5 they are being considered in Illinois. The rules which
    6 we are proposing to the Pollution Control Board, do not
    7 address these social and economic issues, but rather
    8 provide for the protection of our natural resources.
    9 However, there are many producers and industry experts
    10 who would warn that the increased cost of regulations may
    11 actually lead to an acceleration to small to mid sized
    12 livestock operations leaving the industry. As a result,
    13 the Illinois Department of Agriculture recognizes that
    14 the rules to be adopted need to be fair in their
    15 approach, economically reasonable in their implementation
    16 and based on sound, scientific information.
    17
    18 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you, Mr.
    Boruff.
    19 Mr.
    Warrington, would you like to continue?
    20
    21 MR. WARRINGTON: Good morning. My name is
    22 Rich
    Warrington, I'm an attorney with the Illinois
    23 Environmental Protection Agency. On behalf of our
    24 director, Laurie
    Davidly and Chief Jim Park, we would
    21
    1 like to welcome you here and thank you for your interest
    2 in coming out today. I will be summarizing the testimony
    3 that Jim Park gave at the hearing in Jacksonville,
    4 Illinois on January 14th. Copies of his testimony are
    5 available on the side table by the door.
    6 The Illinois EPA supports the adoption of
    7 R97-15. The addition of operator certification and the
    8 mandate for livestock waste management plans for the
    9 largest of these facilities is a positive step to
    10 establishing consistent and responsible operation of
    11 livestock waste handling facilities in the state. We
    12 endorse and encourage the training and educational
    13 programs set forth in these rules, as a meaningful
    14 approach in making the agricultural community aware of
    15 the responsibilities and beneficial aspects of sound
    16 livestock waste management. This program, when fully
    17 developed, promises to allow for the communication and
    18 the evaluation of inch innovative technology, as it
    19 effects the development of the operators waste management
    20 plans. The expansion of the setback limits, as mandated
    21 under the Livestock Management Facilities Act, is also a
    22 necessary step in addressing the potential detrimental
    23 aspects of large livestock facilities.
    24 We would like to recommend three additional
    22
    1 provisions in the permanent rules to be adopted by the
    2 Illinois Pollution Control Board.
    3 First, is that soil boring requirements are
    4 satisfactory for the vast majority of sites in Illinois,
    5 as prescribed under 35 Illinois Administrative Code
    6 506.202-B. However, the Illinois Department of
    7 Agriculture needs adequate flexibility to require
    8 additional borings in the case of disturbed or mined land
    9 that may have altered hydrology and soil conditions, or
    10 routes to ground water via abandoned shafts. In these
    11 circumstances, a single boring for a large four to six
    12 acre lagoon would be insufficient.
    13 Secondly, we recommend a prohibition on the
    14 use of outlet piping through the lagoon
    berm. Section
    15 4.6.2 of the American Society of Agricultural Engineering
    16 standards states that an overflow device with a minimum
    17 capacity of 1.5 times the peak daily inflow may be
    18 installed at the lagoon surface level only if the
    19 overflow is to be contained in another lagoon cell or
    20 other treatment facility. Outlet devices should be
    21 installed in a way that allows effluent to be taken at a
    22 level 150 to 450 millimeters, six to 18 inches below the
    23 surface. This seems to suggest that a subsurface outlet
    24 may be approved. The Illinois EPA is aware of a recent
    23
    1 example in North Carolina where lagoon slope failure was
    2 related to, and possibly directly caused by, an outlet
    3 pipe design of this type. The National Resource
    4 Conservation Service recently changed the North Carolina
    5 guidance document, so that if any pipes are to placed
    6 through the embankment, the location and method of
    7 installation shall be approved by the designer of the
    8 embankment. The installation shall be certified by the
    9 inspector. It should be noted that this guidance
    10 document, although designated as a Natural Resource
    11 Conservation Service document, was developed specifically
    12 for and applies only to North Carolina. The National
    13 Resource Conservation Service reference document included
    14 in this proposal, does not contain this guideline.
    15 Therefore, the Illinois EPA recommends an addition to
    16 R97-15 that either: (a) prohibits the use of through the
    17
    berm outlet piping, unless the piping discharges to
    18 another lagoon, or (b) requires the Illinois Department
    19 of Agriculture's specific approval, as called for in the
    20 North Carolina example.
    21 And finally, we recommended a requirement for
    22 emergency spillway. The National Resource Conservation
    23 Service document very clearly specifies under what
    24 condition this is to be present: Lagoons having a
    24
    1 maximum design liquid level of three foot or more above
    2 nature ground, shall be provided with an emergency
    3 spillway or an overflow pipe to prevent
    overtopping.
    4 Since this is not addressed in the American Society of
    5 Agricultural Engineer's document, a potential point of
    6 exists that could be corrected by adding a provision to
    7 R97-15 for the design to include an emergency spillway.
    8 In conclusion, the Illinois EPA, acting in
    9 its role through the Livestock Management Facilities Act
    10 Advisory Committee, has evaluated and made
    11 recommendations on a wide variety of issues presented on
    12 the subject of livestock waste management in the course
    13 of our deliberations. Those on this committee, the
    14 Department of Public Health, the Department of Natural
    15 Resources and in particular, the Department of
    16 Agriculture are to be commended for their efforts in
    17 drafting a well reasoned set of proposed rules for the
    18 Illinois PCB's consideration. R97-15 represents a strong
    19 step forward in the effective management and prevention
    20 of pollution from large livestock facilities in Illinois.
    21 We encourage the Illinois PCB to adopt R97-15 and include
    22 the above noted modifications. Thank you.
    23
    24 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you Mr.
    Warrington.
    25
    1 Doctor Marlin, would you like to continue?
    2
    3 MR. MARLIN: Good morning. My name is John
    4 Marlin, I work for the Illinois Department of Natural
    5 Resources and represent its director on the Livestock
    6 Management Facilities Advisory Committee. We've
    7 testified extensively, and copies of our similar
    8 testimony are available on the table near the door.
    9 The Department of Natural Resources supports
    10 the livestock regulation proposal before the board today.
    11 We realize, however, that it's limited by the constraints
    12 of the Livestock Management Facilities Act. The
    13 department believes design standards stability and design
    14 hydraulic capacity are consistent with today's design
    15 standards and public health from lagoon embankment.
    16 Proposed lagoon design standards reasonable of aquifer
    17 resources. To be consistent with standard dignitary
    18 methods used in these type of facilities. Manager
    19 certification and training sections provide the
    20 Department of Agriculture an opportunity to address
    21 operations not necessarily covered by the rules.
    22 Proposed findings, the definition of
    23 populated area, to make it clearer. That lands managed
    24 for conservation or recreational purposes, including 4H
    26
    1 camps, and boy scout camps and girl scout camps are
    2 considered populated areas, as long as they meet the 50
    3 persons per week requirement. The Department of Natural
    4 Resources suggested property boundaries of such places be
    5 used when measuring the appropriate setback from
    6 livestock facilities. Millions of people visit our parks
    7 annually for family picnics, camping out, horse back
    8 riding, hiking and other activities annually. It is our
    9 view that the level of odors occurring adjacent to many
    10 livestock facilities is incapable with such outdoor
    11 experiences.
    12 The department appreciates the opportunity to
    13 appear today, and thank those who participated in this
    14 process.
    15
    16 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you, Dr. Marlin.
    17 Mr.
    Mudgett?
    18
    19 MR. MUDGETT: I'm with the Illinois
    20 Department of Public Health and representative on the
    21 Livestock Management Facilities advisory committee. We
    22 support the rules as proposed.
    23 Our primary concern of the proposed rule,
    24 protection of ground water, which may serve as drinking
    27
    1 water wells and believe that the requirements in this
    2 regard adequate and reasonable.
    3 We also endorse the remainder of the rules as
    4 being the most appropriate in keeping with both the
    5 letter and spirit of the Livestock Management Facilities
    6 Act.
    7 I would like to add at this point, we agree
    8 with the language as subject by the Department of
    9 Agriculture, section 506.303 for ground water
    10 contamination, and in 506.303-B pertaining to
    11 contamination of livestock waste and saturated soils.
    12 These recommendations were included in the department's
    13 Jacksonville -- well, in the Department of Agriculture's
    14 testimony in Jacksonville, and actually recommended by
    15 the rules advisory committee and endorsed by the Illinois
    16 Department of Public Health.
    17 I too have copies of my written testimony on
    18 the table near the door. We appreciate the opportunity
    19 to participate in the rule making. Thank you.
    20
    21 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you, Mr.
    Mudgett.
    22 And thank you for all the agencies for their testimony.
    23 Proceed and enter any exhibits that any of
    24 the agencies have that they would like to enter at this
    28
    1 time. First, begin with the Department of Agriculture,
    2 and move on to the Illinois Environmental Protection
    3 Agency and finally the Department of Natural Resources.
    4
    5 MR. BORUFF: Over the course of the last few
    6 years, there have been from time to time requests for
    7 additional information to the board, as well as some
    8 points of clarification that the board or others have
    9 requested that our department might consider as
    10 amendments to our proposed rules. I'm going to give you
    11 several documents in light of those amendments or point
    12 of clarification that were asked by board members or
    13 others.
    14 What I think we'll do, we have a rather large
    15 pile here, Mr.
    Goetsch and Frank will be handing these to
    16 you as we go through these.
    17 First exhibit I would offer to you, one is a
    18 letter attached to a bulletin. The letter is from our
    19 department to the Natural Resource Conservation Service,
    20 adding clarity to a difficult national situation, which
    21 arose on the definition of holding ponds versus lagoons.
    22 So in this exhibit is a letter from our department dated
    23 November 22nd to the state conservationist at NRCS. And
    24 then subsequently attached to that is their bulletin sent
    29
    1 to field staff across the state, which allows for them to
    2 make that modification in their definition. That would
    3 be the first exhibit to you.
    4
    5 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: I would like to show for
    6 the record, a letter dated November 22nd, attached to the
    7 bulletin IL 210-7-3, dated December 3rd, 1996, has been
    8 entered into the record as Exhibit Number 47.
    9
    10 MR. BORUFF: The next exhibit is a large
    11 number of documents here. The board requested, if
    12 possible, for your department to provide them with
    13 regulations and laws pertaining to livestock waste
    14 management in other states. And what we have entered is
    15 a composite of regulations taken from the states of
    16 Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Kansas and
    17 Minnesota. And to our best knowledge, these are the
    18 current rules and regulations that pertain in these six
    19 states.
    20 We had also -- I think in a little bit longer
    21 here, you'll be getting an exhibit from the Illinois EPA,
    22 and they have done a summary of these, so you need not go
    23 through each one of these documents. So this would be
    24 our next exhibit.
    30
    1 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Let the record reflect
    2 the submission by the Department of Agriculture,
    3 documents from Missouri, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kansas and
    4 Minnesota and North Carolina. Is that the complete
    5 states?
    6
    7 MR. BORUFF: Yes, six states.
    8
    9 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: That has been marked as
    10 Exhibit Number 48, for the record.
    11
    12 MR. BORUFF: Thank you. The next exhibit we
    13 would be offering to you, Illinois Department of
    14 Agriculture's report for the Illinois General Assembly
    15 relative to the section of the act dealing with financial
    16 responsibility. The act specified that our department
    17 was to report to the general assembly, and this, as it
    18 was introduced by the director, Becky
    Doyle, Director of
    19 Agriculture to the Illinois Senate and House of
    20 Representatives. That would be our next exhibit.
    21
    22 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Let the record reflect, a
    23 letter from dated February 5th, 1997, has been marked as
    24 Exhibit number 29 -- 49, excuse me.
    31
    1 MR. BORUFF: The next exhibit that we would
    2 offer to you pertains to livestock waste management
    3 plans. There has been quite a large amount of discussion
    4 to how these plans would actually be developed by
    5 livestock producers, what one would look like and what
    6 they would include.
    7 What we did on paper, the Illinois Department
    8 of Agriculture went into the livestock business, and we
    9 now have the IDA Livestock Farm, which is a fictitious
    10 livestock farm, and we have gone through on paper
    11 managing this, our on size paper farm, and how we would
    12 develop the livestock waste management plan, taking into
    13 consideration what we have proposed within the rules.
    14 So that would be our next exhibit.
    15
    16 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Let the record reflect
    17 that the Department of Agriculture sample waste
    18 management plan has been marked as Exhibit Number 50 and
    19 entered into the record.
    20
    21 MR. BORUFF: Thank you. The next series of
    22 documents which we would offer as exhibits pertain to the
    23 sample analysis and field application of livestock waste.
    24 There has been discussion and questions in earlier
    32
    1 testimony and hearings regarding this issue, so we made a
    2 search of several different states, and what we found
    3 primarily cooperative extension service of publications
    4 pertinent to this issue of waste management. That would
    5 be our next exhibit which was just handed to you.
    6
    7 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Let the record reflect
    8 that the Department of Agriculture's further submission
    9 of various co-op extension publications has been marked
    10 as Exhibit Number 51 and entered into the record.
    11
    12 MR. BORUFF: The next exhibit refers to a
    13 clarification of the definition of the licensed
    14 professional geologist. At the request of the board, the
    15 department contacted the Illinois Department of
    16 Professional Regulation relative to the application of
    17 the term licensed professional geologist. The following
    18 definition, which is included in our exhibit is found --
    19 contained with the Illinois Professional geologist
    20 licensing act found at 225 ILCS 745/1. And on the
    21 exhibit, we have italicized language as taken from there.
    22 Based on that definition, the department respectfully
    23 suggests that the following be added to the evaluation or
    24 R97-15.
    33
    1 Also, the department has attached a copy of
    2 the professional geologist professional licensing act for
    3 your consideration.
    4
    5 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Let the record reflect,
    6 definition of licensed professional geologist -- licensed
    7 professional geologist, along with the department's
    8 suggestion of additional language attached to the actual
    9 professional geologist license act has been marked as
    10 Exhibit Number 52 and entered into the record.
    11
    12 MR. BORUFF: The next exhibit would pertain
    13 to the concept of continuing of setbacks after damage by
    14 a natural occurrence. At an earlier hearing, the
    15 Illinois Department of Agricultural responded to a
    16 pre-filed question from an industry of coalition
    17 representative. The issue dealt with livestock
    18 facilities destroyed by natural occurrence would be
    19 allowed to contain its original setback until such time
    20 as its facility was rebuilt. We submit the following
    21 language, and I'm going to provide comments of operations
    22 at a facility reconstructed after partial or total
    23 destruction, such as a tornado, fire, flood or earthquake
    24 shall not be considered the location of a new livestock
    34
    1 facility or waste handling facility for setback purposes.
    2 Like a residence partially or totally destroyed, such as
    3 tornado, fire, flood or earthquake shall obtain its
    4 original setback no greater than two years for a said
    5 reconstruction of such residence.
    6 In our original answer to this, we had not
    7 included and offered it as amendment for clarification.
    8 Also a question from a board member prompted our addition
    9 of the final sentence regarding the availability of a
    10 residence when constructed within a specific period of
    11 time to maintain the original setback.
    12 The Illinois Department of Agriculture
    13 respectfully submits these as amendments to our proposed
    14 rules.
    15
    16 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Let the record reflect
    17 continuation of setbacks after damage by a natural
    18 occurrence, along with the department's invested language
    19 changes and addition has been marked as Exhibit Number
    20 53.
    21
    22 MR. BORUFF: Our next exhibit would pertain
    23 to the concept of applying livestock waste to a grass
    24 waterway. The Mt. Vernon hearing didn't consider
    35
    1 language clarification to livestock waste through
    2 irrigation systems onto grass areas, which could be
    3 coincidental with waterways. The department respectfully
    4 submits the following language as to our rule of
    5 proposal. This would be changed to section 506.303,
    6 waste management plan contents, letter R, and amendment
    7 would read as follows: Provision that livestock waste
    8 will not be applied in waterways for the purposes of this
    9 part, a grass area serving as a waterway may receive
    10 livestock waste through an irrigation system, if there's
    11 no run off. The distance from applied livestock waste to
    12 surface water is greater than 200 feet. Distance from
    13 applied livestock waste to pot whole water supplies --
    14 excuse me, water supply wells is greater than 150 feet
    15 and precipitation not expected within 24 hours.
    16
    17 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you. Let the
    18 record reflect grass waterway proposal regarding section
    19 506.303-R has been marked as Exhibit Number 54 and
    20 entered into the record.
    21
    22 MR. BORUFF: Thank you. Next exhibit we
    23 would enter, introduction of setback land directly from
    24 the Livestock Management Facilities Act into proposed
    36
    1 permanent rules. At previous hearing, discussion held
    2 benefit of including language, including to setbacks as
    3 it appears within the Livestock Facilities Act, and
    4 include that into a portion of the permanent rules.
    5 After reflection upon this discussion, the Illinois
    6 Department of Agriculture would respectfully propose to
    7 Illinois Pollution Control Board that section 35 of the
    8 Livestock Management Facilities Act, entitled Setbacks
    9 For Livestock Management and Livestock Management
    10 Facilities be include in the permanent rule at subpart G,
    11 entitled setbacks, section 506.701. With the inclusion
    12 of this language, it will become necessary to remove
    13 section 506.702-A and B in order to avoid redundancy.
    14 Section 506.702-C should be retained in the letter F of
    15 the new section as proposed.
    16
    17 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Let the record reflect
    18 introduction of said language from the Livestock
    19 Management Facilities Act into the proposed permanent
    20 rules, has been marked as Exhibit Number 55 and entered
    21 into the record.
    22
    23 MR. BORUFF: Next exhibit, based on the
    24 concept of nutrient management plans based upon nitrogen.
    37
    1 At an earlier hearing, discussion of the merits of waste
    2 management based on nitrogen content versus phosphorous
    3 content took place. Board member
    Gadsore comments at a
    4 later date regarding this issue. Later during that same
    5 hearing, testimony was provided to the board relative to
    6 the issue of nitrogen versus waste management plans.
    7 Illinois Department of Agriculture refer to publications
    8 from the University of Illinois Cooperative Extension
    9 Service provided as testimony and exhibits at earlier
    10 hearings. Livestock Management Facilities Act states
    11 manure, based on nitrogen, and previous testimony and
    12 exhibits, Illinois Department of Agriculture has chosen
    13 not to provide additional testimony relative to this
    14 issue at this time.
    15
    16 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you, Mr.
    Boruff.
    17 Let the nutrient management plans, based upon nitrogen,
    18 has been marked as Exhibit Number 56 and entered into the
    19 record.
    20
    21 MR. BORUFF: Our next exhibit, held relative
    22 lagoon should be emergency spillways and Illinois
    23 Department of Agriculture's spillway position on that
    24 issue. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency has
    38
    1 presented as part of their pre-filed testimony
    2 requirement for emergency spillway be added to the
    3 proposal. NRCS reference document include language
    4 regarding emergency spillways, and American Society of
    5 Agricultural Engineering reference document does not.
    6 The agency suggests that a potential point of confusion
    7 exists that could be corrected by the R97-15 for the
    8 design to include an emergency spillway.
    9 At Mt. Vernon, hearing agency counsel
    10 suggested it was the position of IEPA emergency spillway
    11 recommendation was intended to protect the lagoon from
    12 general
    overtopping and possible
    berm failure should the
    13 lagoon be exhausted and a large precipitation occur.
    14 Our department understands the agency's
    15 position, but does not believe an emergency spillway
    16 should be to every lagoon. Requirement for contain of 67
    17 inches of rain fall involve in addition to eight minimum
    18 design volume, livestock waste volume and sludge
    19 accumulation volume.
    20 35 AOC 506.204 letter G, number four, a
    21 freeboard is required of either 12 inches or 24 inches,
    22 depending on the maximum design capacity of the livestock
    23 facility. Current proposal liquid level board or star
    24 gauge within the entire to serve as a visual remainder of
    39
    1 the start pumping and pumping elevations and assist in
    2 running off and freeboard volumes. Take it together,
    3 freeboard and run off volumes should provide at least 18
    4 to 30 inches of the lagoon volume, depending on facility
    5 size, to serve as emergency support of unusual weather.
    6 This assumes the lagoon has been filled to significant
    7 capacity at the onset of the unusual weather pattern
    8 which should not normally be the case. Design criteria
    9 contained in the proposal appropriate level to lagoon.
    10 Further, the department suggests addition of
    11 spillway reduction freeboard volume if overall volume is
    12 not increased or substantial increased if the overall
    13 height of the
    berms is increased. This would also send
    14 the wrong message to producers by applying discharge from
    15 this zero discharge facility should be appropriate. Thus
    16 department suggests if board deems there to be an
    17 adequate conflict in the design standards to require
    18 clarification of the rule, a provision be added -- a
    19 provision be added to 35 AOC 506.24-G which makes
    20 inclusion of the design of the lagoon voluntary and
    21 requires spillway contained in 35 AOC 506.204-G-4.
    22
    23 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you, Mr.
    Boruff.
    24 Let the record reflect, Department of Agriculture,
    40
    1 department emergency spillway position has been marked
    2 and entered into the record as Exhibit Number 57.
    3
    4 MR. BORUFF: Our next exhibit refers to
    5 interior
    berm slope and change in our proposal in the
    6 rules. The proposed design standard relative to
    berm
    7 slope found at 35 AOC 506.204-G-2, and reads as follows:
    8 Any livestock waste lagoon subject to the provision of
    9 this shall meet or exceed the following. Number one,
    10 minimal
    berm shall be 78 feet. Number two, interior and
    11 exterior wall shall have side slopes not steeper than
    12 three to one ratio and vegetative cover. Any
    berm areas
    13 and maintain eliminate erosion or other
    berm
    14 deterioration.
    15 Remarks provided at the Jacksonville hearing
    16 provide the following: Department believes somewhat more
    17 restricted -- restrict overall size of the lagoons and
    18 importantly, all portion of the lagoons are mowing and
    19 other appropriate maintenance. Enhance facility managers
    20 to continually monitor the condition of lagoon
    berms
    21 properly. Maintain the structures and thus prevent
    22 possible
    berm failures.
    23 At that same hearing, professional evaluation
    24 at the University of Illinois Agriculture Engineering
    41
    1 Department, suggested that that requirement be modified
    2 for steeper
    berm slopes on the submerged portion of the
    3 lagoon
    berm. Our department has considered department
    4 function, suggested and believes, that some refinement to
    5 the proposal to meet both goals. We believe interior
    6
    berm slope will greatly reduce the lagoon while not
    7 backing of lagoon
    berms only below the elevation where
    8 liquids would be present during most of the year and
    9 proper maintenance to exposed
    berm surface. This
    10 elevation would coincide with the start pumping elevation
    11 as I mentioned a moment ago. The department support of
    12 changing the proposal 35 AOC 506.204-G as follows with
    13 our proposed change: Any livestock weights subject to
    14 the provisions of this park shall meet or exceed the
    15 following: Number one, the minimum
    berm top shall be
    16 eight feet. And number two, with the new language
    17 exterior and normally exposed interior above the liquid
    18 level elevation corresponding to the elevation of the
    19 sludge volumes and minimum design volumes. Earth and
    20 wall, three to one ratio horizontal to vertical and
    21 vegetative cover on any exposed
    berm area to maintain or
    22 eliminate erosion and adding new language. Below the
    23 liquid level of elevation, corresponding to the elevation
    24 of sludge volumes and design volumes may have side volume
    42
    1 two to one ratio horizontal to vertical, and shall be
    2 maintained to eliminate
    berm deterioration. And that
    3 would be the end of that exhibit.
    4
    5 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you, Mr.
    Boruff.
    6 Let the record reflect, interior
    berm slope proposal
    7 regarding 506.204-G, marked as Exhibit Number 58 and
    8 entered into the record.
    9
    10 MR. BORUFF: Livestock waste sampling.
    11 Testimony in question from previous hearings before the
    12 board, has raised a concern dealing with the timing and
    13 practicality of livestock waste sampling for determining
    14 by laboratory analysis. The proposed rule requires
    15 livestock waste to be sampled prior to the application
    16 for that year, and the nutrient content results be
    17 incorporated into the waste management plan prior to that
    18 year's application. This approach was taken to
    19 incorporate the most up-to-date information into the plan
    20 in the departments pre-filed testimony reference was
    21 played to potential problems, such as obtaining a
    22 representative sample of livestock waste.
    23 Other problems discussed, including odor
    24 generated vegetation was used in the process and
    43
    1 pre-filed testimony. Another option during the
    2 application process performed on that representative
    3 sample and using a nutrient for undated during the next
    4 application process. Cooperative have indicated nutrient
    5 content of the waste may not change dramatically from
    6 year to year in planning other changes that have not
    7 occurred. According to planning, using actual lab
    8 analysis results or published of livestock waste. This
    9 is already allowed in 35 Illinois Administrative Code
    10 506.305-A. Samples for analysis would be obtained during
    11 waste application, and results would be used for the next
    12 application process. The department would support
    13 changes to our proposal as outlined in the exhibit, which
    14 has been given to you.
    15
    16 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you, Mr.
    Boruff.
    17 Let the record reflect, livestock waste management
    18 proposal is marked as Exhibit 59.
    19 And let members of the public know, the
    20 majority of these proposed languages Mr.
    Boruff has read
    21 to you, so you're seeing primarily what I'm seeing up
    22 here today.
    23 Is there anything else the Department of
    24 Agriculture wants to submit at this time?
    44
    1 MR. BORUFF: That's all I have.
    2
    3 MS. MANNING: Have the others had an
    4 opportunity to review --
    5
    6 MR. WARRINGTON: We have considered those
    7 matters and we have some witnesses to address those later
    8 in the day, if you wish.
    9 As Mr.
    Boruff indicated, we have a summary of
    10 the regulations of other states, condensing that rather
    11 large thing into a few pages, mainly by shrinking the
    12 type.
    13 The remaining issues go to the question of
    14 the enforcement history of the existing board and the
    15 duration of the term animal unit. And lastly, the
    16 background and some of the equipment program that the
    17 board asked about. In order to introduce these exhibits,
    18 I'm going to ask for the assistance of A. G. Taylor,
    19 adviser for the Illinois Department of Agriculture
    20 Agency.
    21
    22 (Witness is sworn in.)
    23
    24 MR. WARRINGTON: We have two exhibits for the
    45
    1 question. One is a listing of cases that had been
    2 decided by the court or the Pollution Control Board
    3 regarding either water pollution incidents or odor
    4 pollution incidents since 1973.
    5 And another one that A. G. will be talking
    6 about directly is a ten year summary of statistics about
    7 enforcement activities by the Environmental Protection
    8 Agency.
    9
    10 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: I would like to enter
    11 into the record the Illinois EPA of various states'
    12 requirements of livestock waste facilities, which has
    13 been marked as Exhibit Number 60.
    14
    15 MR. WARRINGTON: Could you give a brief
    16 summary of the ten year summary?
    17
    18 MR. TAYLOR: I'll try to summaries what's
    19 here, and you can try to digest the tables and the other
    20 data, so that when you go home you can use it for good
    21 bedtime reading, as if you don't have enough already to
    22 begin with.
    23 I do want to qualify this data and explain
    24 how we do gather the data and why it's put together. In
    46
    1 September '78, the Pollution Control Board adopted what
    2 we consider the present day livestock waste regulations,
    3 and they were calling for livestock facilities to be in
    4 compliance of June 30th of 1979. At that time, we began
    5 hiring special field staff to administer livestock waste
    6 management program, and we brought five people on board
    7 and assigned them to some of our local offices throughout
    8 the state.
    9 Now since that time, we have had periods
    10 where some of the positions have been vacant, and also
    11 these individuals have become involved in other programs
    12 or in other areas that we have to deal with, such as the
    13 AG chemical problems, spills and cleanup problems that we
    14 have with AG chemical facilities. So 100 percent of
    15 their time is not necessarily spent on livestock waste
    16 and management, but we still have at the present, five
    17 people in the regional offices. These individuals
    18 respond primarily to complaints; although, from time to
    19 time they do observations and follow up on those where
    20 they suspect a falsity maybe out of compliance. The
    21 majority though are based upon citizens' complaints.
    22 They try to work cooperatively with the producers,
    23 identify for the producer what the problem may be. Give
    24 the producer reasonable amount of time to come into
    47
    1 compliance. If that doesn't work, we may follow up with
    2 a letter explaining what the potential violations are and
    3 ask for response to the letter. If that does not work,
    4 we may bring them in for pre-enforcement conference, and
    5 at that point there's either agreement or resolution to
    6 the problem, or we have the option of referring the case
    7 to the Attorney General's Office.
    8 Now records of our field investigations have
    9 been kept since 1979. Initially, these were done by
    10 hand. I actually went through field memos that the
    11 livestock field staff provided to me. We next developed
    12 an area for a survey sheet for each of the facilities,
    13 they submitted those to me and I would review them and
    14 compile the data.
    15 And then for 1985, we developed a computer
    16 program and they were able to fill out the data for each
    17 facility that they had visited during any given year, and
    18 then all that data is combined into one report. And the
    19 tables that we have presented here are 10 years worth of
    20 using that data that's compiled by our computer program.
    21 Just a little bit of information on here.
    22 Oh, the basic reason that we compile this data is to get
    23 a good idea of what our workload is with livestock
    24 facilities and identify the most prevalent problems. By
    48
    1 doing so, we can go to extension engineers, the
    2 university or we can go to Natural Resource Conservation
    3 Service and try to find resolution to those type of
    4 problems and get the word out through the extension
    5 programs and other contacts, so that farmers have the
    6 opportunity to prevent these problems from occurring.
    7 That is a primary purpose of this data.
    8 To go over this just a little bit, the total
    9 number of livestock operations that we have visited, and
    10 I have to do it from 1979 through '94, is 2,639. The
    11 data aren't compiled in a way that we can really say for
    12 that specific ten year period exactly how many facilities
    13 we had gone to. If I were giving an estimate, I would
    14 say that 1400 facilities between 1985 and 1994 would be a
    15 legitimate estimate. The average number of operations
    16 that we investigated a year, 222. The average field
    17 surveys 333. So we go to some facilities more than once
    18 in a given year. Average number of livestock operations
    19 investigated each year that had not been contacted in
    20 previous years; in other words, these are new contacts
    21 for us, 108. The yearly average number of livestock
    22 operations investigated for the first time due to a
    23 citizen's complaint was 87.
    24 All right. Regarding odor investigation, the
    49
    1 average number of odor complaints was 74 per year. The
    2 percentage of those, where there's an apparent odor or
    3 potential violations of the act or the Pollution Control
    4 Board's regulation is 87 percent. The percent that we
    5 attribute to land application are 42 percent, and the
    6 percent due to stationary sources, such as a lagoon or
    7 feed lot is 48 percent.
    8 Water pollution, average number of water
    9 pollution complaints investigated per year are 94. The
    10 percentage of water pollution complaint investigations
    11 conducted where apparent or potential violations occur
    12 are 88 percent. The percentage water pollution problems
    13 related to feed lot run off, 37 percent. Those
    14 attributable discharges and overflows from pits or
    15 lagoons is 28 percent. In regard to compliance and
    16 enforcement, we note that 67 percent of the facilities we
    17 feel have had an apparent or potential violation of the
    18 act or board's regulations. Now this doesn't calculate
    19 if you go one on one, but we have to note a number of the
    20 facilities we go to have complaints alleged against them
    21 both in regard to odor and water pollution. So these
    22 numbers are intermixed. And for a person who doesn't
    23 know how they're put together, they're somewhat difficult
    24 to interpret. And a hazard that I want to caution you
    50
    1 against is not to misinterpret or over interpret what is
    2 here.
    3 Now we've had an example of that, and let me
    4 elaborate a little bit. Jim Frank, who gave testimony
    5 last Friday had one of these tables. It has been given
    6 to some people upon request in the past, and he was using
    7 it to analyze problems related to field application,
    8 water pollution problems related to field application of
    9 livestock waste. And he noted that there was 155
    10 problems that we have identified during this ten year
    11 period. Subsequently, he attempted to extrapolate this
    12 to the entire universe of livestock facilities in
    13 Illinois, and he noted on the average there was, during
    14 those years, 47,140 facilities, and he noted that we had
    15 155 problems related to field application. You could
    16 divide that by 10 and that would be 15.5 problems per
    17 year. So he divided the 15.5 by 47,100 facilities in
    18 these given years. That's .003 percent of the facilities
    19 had problems related to livestock, and water pollution
    20 problems related to livestock waste application.
    21 On the other hand, another person could pick
    22 up this information and knowing my estimate, that during
    23 this period we probably went to 1400 facilities and we
    24 had 155 problems related to land application of livestock
    51
    1 waste, to come up with a fact that 12 percent of the
    2 facilities could extrapolate that to the whole 12 percent
    3 of the facilities in the state have problems related to
    4 land application of livestock waste. Now in reality,
    5 neither one of these analyses would be correct or
    6 accurate. I just give that example, not to be overly
    7 critical of Mr. Frank, but just to caution people not to
    8 over interpret what this information provides.
    9
    10 MR. WARRINGTON: Would you want to entertain
    11 questions now?
    12
    13 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: We'll wait till later.
    14 Second group of exhibits, Mr.
    Warrington, I
    15 will actually enter into record as Exhibit Number 62, the
    16 IEPA livestock waste program data ten year summary.
    17 And while you're addressing the odor related
    18 cases, we'll mark that as Exhibit Number 61 into the
    19 record.
    20
    21 MR. WARRINGTON: The second question we were
    22 asked of the origin and derivation of the term animal
    23 unit as it's used in board regulation. We have Mr.
    24 Taylor to go back to the original federal registers that
    52
    1 discuss that, and he has copies of those for the board,
    2 but for the record, federal registers of May 3rd 1973,
    3 July 5th, 1973, November 28th, 1975 and March 18th, 1976.
    4 And Mr. Taylor has a summary of what these federal
    5 registers have discussed relative to the meaning of that
    6 term, if you would like to use those as an exhibit.
    7 A. G. could you give us a summary, a very
    8 short summary?
    9
    10 MR. TAYLOR: I will try to. Why on earth
    11 does anyone want to do any research on animal units in
    12 preparing a paper for an upcoming conference and trying
    13 to explain some myths and misconception that we've
    14 encountered over the past couple of years, and one of the
    15 terms for which there's grave misconception is the term
    16 animal unit, so I thought I would go back and just find
    17 out how it came about, at least in terms of the
    18 Environmental Protection Agency and their NPDS program
    19 and the regulations that we have here in Illinois.
    20 And I found that the definition of animal
    21 unit first appeared in the federal register in March
    22 18th, 1976, which concerned rules and regulations for
    23 state program elements necessary for participation in the
    24 National Pollutant Discharge System, and here is where
    53
    1 the EPA first defined the term animal unit. You'll see
    2 the definition written in the handout. This definition
    3 was developed from numbers put forth in the definition of
    4 another term called concentrated animal feeding
    5 operation. And basically what they did was developed
    6 ratios of these numbers for the purpose of -- well,
    7 defining concentrated feeding animal, they actually
    8 designated how many animals of the different species
    9 would have to be on site for it to be defined as a
    10 concentrated animal feeding operation. But they also had
    11 other situations where they may have been more than one
    12 species and how could they add the two. What they did
    13 come up with these multiplier ratios, comparing the
    14 numbers that they had assigned for swine and the other
    15 species to 1000 slaughter and feeder cattle. And USEPA
    16 had only come up with four of these multiplier ratios,
    17 and those were for slaughter steers and heifers as one,
    18 because 1000 -- over 1000. Mature dairy cattle was 1.4.
    19 Swine, over 55 points was .4. And sheep was .1. Now we
    20 note that the Illinois regulations have additional ones,
    21 and this is explained in the rationale for this or the
    22 reasoning for this was explained by Dr.
    Sashell in his
    23 opinion and order from the R76 R15 procedures dated June
    24 22nd, 1978. That definition of animal unit is quite
    54
    1 similar to that promulgated by the USEPA. His more
    2 complete agency proposed to add multiplier numbers for
    3 young dairy stock weighing under 55 pounds, turkeys,
    4 laying hens or broilers and ducks. During the course of
    5 the term breeder cows was added to slaughter and feeder
    6 category and -- was added to the sheep category. Ease of
    7 understanding in computer animal units was one thing I
    8 explained is how USDA came up with the numbers of
    9 concentrated animal feeding operations, and that I think
    10 is the heart of the issue. It had nothing to do with how
    11 much waste the livestock produced. It had nothing to do
    12 with the live weight of the livestock. It had to do with
    13 the
    projectional number of permit applications that they
    14 would receive. What they did was to gather information
    15 from USDA and from the states, and determine how many
    16 feed lots there were of what size, and then determine the
    17 cut off point where they felt they would receive a
    18 manageable number of permit applications.
    19 Now as I just mentioned, in the Illinois
    20 regulations we have additional multiplier ratios in the
    21 definition of animal unit. Some of those, it appears as
    22 if we use the same procedure as USEPA and just comparing
    23 the numbers that they had assigned for some other species
    24 to the 1000 slaughter cattle. However, for the swine
    55
    1 under 55 pounds and the young dairy stock, the history or
    2 the records in the R76-15 proceedings and also going back
    3 in the R72-9 proceedings, suggest that they may have used
    4 live animal weight as a means of doing that.
    5 Initially, in the first proposal put forth by
    6 the Pollution Control Board, there was a definition
    7 called the annual animal unit, and that was 1000 pounds
    8 of live weight on the premises per year. Now one could
    9 realistically assume that the swine under 55 pounds, the
    10 average weight of those would be 30 pounds. And we could
    11 realistically assume that the average live weight of
    12 young dairy stock was around 600 pounds. And if we use
    13 1000 pounds as a common dominator, we come up with .03 as
    14 a multiplier ratio, and .6 as a multiple ratio for the
    15 dairy.
    16 Now these records are not clear in regard to
    17 specifically saying that's the way they developed those
    18 latter two numbers, but they certainly do support the
    19 assumption that such logic was used.
    20 One thing that is important here to note,
    21 however, that it is evident that the state has exercised
    22 its authority to apply multiplier numbers, that was not
    23 found in the federal regulations. But also very
    24 important and necessary to maintain consistency with the
    56
    1 numbers that were promulgated by USEPA, so not to
    2 jeopardize the state's authority to implement feeding
    3 programs in Illinois.
    4
    5 MR. WARRINGTON: Thank you, Mr. Taylor.
    6 Last question that the board would like to
    7 respond to description of the EQIP program.
    8
    9 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Let me go ahead and admit
    10 these two exhibits into the record. That would be the
    11 federal register as Exhibit Number 63 and entered into
    12 the record. As well as the term animal unit marked as
    13 Exhibit Number 64, submitted by the Illinois
    14 Environmental Protection Agency. Thank you, Mr.
    15
    Warrington.
    16 MR. WARRINGTON: We were asked the question
    17 about what this federal program was about. Mr. Taylor
    18 started getting some phone calls, and he has located a
    19 representative that is more knowledgeable about it than
    20 any of us. So with the board's indulgence, we would like
    21 to have Mr. Taylor introduce him and have him sworn in.
    22
    23 MR. TAYLOR: The question arose in the
    Dekalb
    24 hearing regarding the EQIP program and what we may see in
    57
    1 the future with regard to the livestock facilities, and I
    2 think the board requested this information, and I
    3 suggested we get the most authoritative person in the
    4 state to provide that, and that is Gary
    Kabillski, who is
    5 the Deputy State Conservationist for the Natural Resource
    6 Conservation Service here in Illinois. Gary has informed
    7 me that he is prevented from testifying for or against
    8 the proposed regulations, so his statement basically will
    9 be just providing us updated information on the EQIP
    10 program or Environmental Quality Incentive Program.
    11
    12 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Would you come forward
    13 and we'll have the court reporter swear you in.
    14
    15 (Witness sworn.)
    16
    17 MR. KABILLSKI: Good morning. Thank you very
    18 much. I appreciate the opportunity to share with you
    19 about this new EQIP provisions of the farm bill. We see
    20 that this new farm bill and some of the new provisions
    21 really offer some great opportunity for land owners and
    22 land producers across Illinois, particularly the EQIP
    23 program. This particular program is brand new for 1996
    24 and for the years ahead.
    58
    1 There used to be an annual cause program, but
    2 the program pretty much provided funds across the states
    3 and didn't focus really on where the natural resource
    4 concerns and problems were at the county levels. Under
    5 the EQIP program, what's happened is that the Illinois
    6 state tech committee, which is an organization that
    7 represents a multitude of agencies, private individuals
    8 and organizations across the state of Illinois, they
    9 meet -- they identified what we would call conservation
    10 priority areas within the state of Illinois.
    11 There was 10 priority areas that were
    12 submitted to national headquarters, which is what the
    13 EQIP provisions call for. These 10 priority areas would
    14 be areas that would be funded land owners go in and make
    15 application for technical assistance as well as financial
    16 assistance. Within the 10 priority areas that were
    17 submitted in Illinois, there were two of them that really
    18 dealt with animal waste management systems. We had
    19 approximately, if I remember, about 54 counties that were
    20 submitted, that would include a large portion of the
    21 Northwest section of the state down through the central
    22 part, and then the Southwest portion of the state. Those
    23 two conservation priority areas, the provisions of the
    24 law require that 50 percent of all the EQIP funds that
    59
    1 come down to the states be spent on providing assistant
    2 for animal waste management systems.
    3 Then in addition to that, there was what we
    4 call natural resource priority concerns that would be
    5 eligible for funding, also which would be providing
    6 assistance to land owners within every county of the
    7 state of Illinois. And that particular program went
    8 through a water quality initiative type practices would
    9 provide cost share up to 85 percent to land owners for
    10 installing various conservation measures to protect and
    11 to implement animal waste management systems. The
    12 maximum for the priority areas is 75 percent.
    13 We expect to hear within a week, hopefully
    14 not more than two weeks, Secretary of Agriculture will
    15 announce the conservation priority areas that will be
    16 funded across the nation, and we here in Illinois will be
    17 getting that word and at that time we'll be utilizing
    18 local work groups at the county levels.
    19 Land owner operators would go into those
    20 counties and make application as they have in the past,
    21 but the difference is they would be making application
    22 only within these priority areas for the majority of
    23 those funds. Those land owners then would be ranked
    24 against other land owners. But as a result of having two
    60
    1 priority areas that really tie directly to the animal
    2 waste management systems, they will score out and rank
    3 much higher; meaning, there be would more funds allocated
    4 to those two priority areas.
    5 The water quality concern, which is also
    6 another part of it, that would allow land owners across
    7 the state to apply. The costs are the same; however, the
    8 percentage of dollars made available to any counties for
    9 this particular concern would be a less percentage. 65
    10 percent of all the funds spent under the EQIP program,
    11 which is approximately 200,000,000 across the nation, we
    12 would get a percentage of that in Illinois, and 65
    13 percent of that would have to be spent within these 10
    14 priority areas. Now that was 50 percent has to be spent
    15 on animal waste, so you can see there's a tremendous
    16 target area. The remaining are spent on the recourse
    17 concerns identified in the counties across the state of
    18 Illinois. There again, those land owners not within
    19 priority areas would be available to the remaining funds
    20 available.
    21 I guess that would probably give you an
    22 update on the EQIP program itself. And if there's any
    23 question --
    24
    61
    1 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: We'll take questions
    2 after the agencies have finished their testimony. So if
    3 you could, sit down.
    4
    5 MR. WARRINGTON: That concludes our
    6 presentation this morning.
    7
    8 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you very much.
    9 Doctor Marlin?
    10
    11 MR. MARLIN: Before we call any witnesses, I
    12 would like to introduce into the record the livestock
    13 registration of the state of South Carolina, which I
    14 don't believe is introduced yet. And it's a document
    15 that begins 1996 regular section, act 460, but the word
    16 South Carolina appears in the cross.
    17 At this time, I believe it's appropriate that
    18 we have two of our people discuss some of the issues that
    19 have recently been raised, the testimony of Sally
    20
    McConkey on flood plains, and myself on the map issue can
    21 be done at your convenience.
    22
    23 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you, Dr. Marlin.
    24 We'll mark as an exhibit for the record, the act 460
    62
    1 which has been entered as Exhibit Number 65.
    2 Mr. Marlin, would you like to give you
    3 summary?
    4
    5 MR. MARLIN: Okay, the first person we would
    6 like to appear, Don
    Keefer, from the Illinois State
    7 Geological Survey.
    8
    9 (Witness sworn.)
    10
    11 MR. KEEFER: As John mentioned, I'm Don
    12
    Keefer with the ground water resources and protection
    13 section at the Illinois State Geological Survey division
    14 of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources.
    15 In his testimony to the board on January 29th
    16 of this year, Dr.
    Saterly proposed a change in the
    17 minimum thickness of earth and liners from two feet to
    18 one feet, or one and one-half feet. As stated in prior
    19 testimony, there are several mechanisms for failure of
    20 earth liners. It's the position that this proposed
    21 change would significantly increase the frequency of
    22 liner failures that would cause in these mechanism.
    23 Also concerned that this change would provide
    24 less tolerance for irregularities in the liners that
    63
    1 would be introduced during construction. A one foot
    2 thick liner would consist of only two lifts. Failure in
    3 one of these lifts would present a much larger threat to
    4 the integrity of the interior liner.
    5 This department believes unacceptable risk
    6 and continues to support the Department of Agriculture's
    7 proposal. Thank you.
    8
    9 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you. Mr. Marlin?
    10
    11 MR. MARLIN: Continue with the Department of
    12 Engineering Water Resources.
    13
    14 (Witness is sworn.)
    15
    16 MR. STRALOW: As John introduced, I'm Martin
    17
    Stralow, I'm the division manager of the Division of
    18 Water Resources Management of the office of Water
    19 Resources of the Department of Natural Resources. I'm a
    20 licensed professional engineer with 22 years of
    21 experience in water resources engineering, the last 13
    22 involved with the state's safety program.
    23 My testimony this morning will be basically
    24 in support of the Department of Agriculture's proposed
    64
    1 amendments to the rules, specifically to emergency
    2 spillway, freeboard and slope stability. The proposed
    3 rules provide for containment of reasonably anticipated
    4 rainfall events. A specified freeboard above the total
    5 design volume of two feet which may be reduced to one
    6 foot for lagoon, providing capacity for less than 300
    7 units. Recommend freeboard provide for additional
    8 rainfall storage in excess of the required six inches
    9 included in the total design body. Six inches roughly
    10 correspond to the 25 year, 24 hour rainfall, the criteria
    11 in the ASAE standard. The proposed freeboard provides
    12 for containment of greater rainfall accumulations that
    13 may occur specifically for longer duration storms.
    14 The Illinois State Water Survey miscellaneous
    15 publication 151 1993 flood on the Mississippi River shows
    16 that the two month's rainfall totals in excess of 11.5
    17 inches have occurred 10 times since 1895 or about once
    18 every 10 years. The Illinois State Water Survey
    19 bulletin, 70 frequency distribution of
    hydroclamatic
    20 characteristics of heavy rainfalls in Illinois. 25 year,
    21 10 day rainfall event being approximately 10 inches. And
    22 the 110 day rainfall being approximately 13 inches. A
    23 prescriptive freeboard of two feet on the larger lagoons
    24 to provide for both additional impoundment storage and
    65
    1 wave run up is certainly reasonable and appropriate.
    2 And second item with regard to emergency
    3 spillways properly designed, constructed, operated and
    4 maintains emergency spillways, are certainly beneficial
    5 for any impoundment structure. For the typical
    6 structures being addressed by the proposed rules, it is
    7 more critical to be designed for and operate with an
    8 adequate amount of freeboard as previously discussed. I
    9 agree with the EPA's position that emergency spillway
    10 means pipes through this type of embankment may create
    11 more opportunity for problems than solved and not
    12 recommended by the Department of Natural Resources.
    13 Finally, regarding embankment slope
    14 stability, three to one in the proposed rules is an
    15 adequate non-design minimum. One of the major reasons
    16 for choosing this slope was for ease of maintenance.
    17 Steeper slopes may be adequate, especially the fluid line
    18 where maintenance is not regularly performed. Such
    19 steeper slopes should be designed by a licensed engineer,
    20 as Mr.
    Boruff indicated this morning.
    21 In summary, Department of Natural Resources
    22 supports the Department of Agriculture's proposed
    23 amendments to the proposed rules, specifically to
    24 emergency spillway, freeboard and slope ability. Thank
    66
    1 you.
    2
    3 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you, Mr.
    Stralow.
    4 Doctor Marlin, would you like to call Sally
    McConkey?
    5
    6 MR. MARLIN: Yes. Sally
    McConkey of our
    7 division known as the Illinois State Water Survey.
    8
    9 (Witness sworn.)
    10
    11 MS. MCCONKEY: I'm Sally
    McConkey, I'm a
    12 professional scientist employed by the Illinois State
    13 Water Survey since 1984. For the past four years, I've
    14 been manager of the surface water and
    floodplain
    15 information services. I'm a state water survey
    16 registered professional engineer in Illinois, and I have
    17 a masters of science degree in civil engineering from the
    18 University of Illinois. As manager of surface water and
    19
    floodplain information services, I interact with the
    20 public on a daily basis. I work with other state and
    21 federal agencies involved in
    floodplain management. I
    22 use the current regulatory 100 year
    floodplain maps, and
    23 much of my work involves estimating 100 year flood
    24 elevations using various engineering calculating methods
    67
    1 and computer modeling techniques.
    2 I would like to offer some basic definitions
    3 and concepts related to
    floodplains and floods. The
    4 ten year flood is a flood event that on the average has a
    5 10 percent chance of occurring in any given year; this is
    6 on a long term average. A 25 year term flood event, that
    7 a flood on the average has a four percent chance of
    8 occurring in any given year. And similarly for the 100
    9 year event, it has a one percent chance of occurring in
    10 any given year.
    11 The
    floodplain associated with particular
    12 frequency of flooding is that area that's expected to be
    13 inundated during that event and thus a ten year flood
    14 event. On the average, the
    floodplain would be -- the
    15
    floodplain has a 10 percent chance of being inundated in
    16 any given year and so on. To give you some perspective,
    17 a two year flood has a 50 percent chance of occurring at
    18 any year. And for streams, that would be the bank full
    19 event. The water fills the top to find chattel. That's
    20 tied either to the magnitude of the discharge or the
    21 rainfall event.
    22 And finally, a flood profile, which I'll
    23 refer to later, is a plot of flood elevations versus
    24 distance along the stream or river. In order to
    68
    1 delineate
    floodplain boundaries associated with a
    2 particular
    floodplain event, it's a three part process.
    3 First, the peak discharge for the particular location on
    4 the stream is determined for that frequency of event.
    5 Second, the channel and
    floodplain capacity at that
    6 location must be assessed to determine how high the water
    7 may rise; or in other words, the
    floodplain elevates.
    8 And third, that flood elevation must be translated to
    9 boundaries on the land defined by the topography.
    10 Now currently available,
    floodplain
    11 information is the next topic that I would like to
    12 address. Through the national flood insurance program,
    13 100 years have been delineated for the entire state. And
    14 the map I brought, depict those
    floodplains that have
    15 been delineated for the national insurance program.
    16
    17 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Let the record reflect
    18 that the witness is referring to a map of the state of
    19 Illinois.
    20
    21 MS. MCCONKEY: Produced by the federal
    22 management agency and have the power to modify those maps
    23 when petitioned. Many of the maps for Illinois are 20 or
    24 more years old, and 100 year
    floodplains and some limited
    69
    1 cases of 500 year
    floodplains are actually mapped.
    2 There's a significant variance in the quality and
    3 accuracy of the maps from county to county. Typically,
    4
    floodplains are not shown for streams that drain an area
    5 of less than one square mile. Very few detailed profile
    6 calculations are developed for rivers and streams in
    7 rural areas, with the exception of some major rivers,
    8 such as the Illinois or Mississippi River.
    9 Typically, detailed studies and model
    10 development have only been performed by urban areas.
    11 Only a subset of these study streams have ten year
    12 profiles published and none of these are in map form. In
    13 some area studies for the national flood insurance
    14 program do include 10, 50, 100 and 500 year discharges
    15 and profiles. The 25 year event though is not typically
    16 specified in flood analysis or assessment. At the scale
    17 of one is equal to 1000 feet, it will take literally
    18 thousands of maps measuring about two feet by three feet
    19 to show 100 year
    floodplains for just the
    unincorporated
    20 areas of Illinois. The current regulatory
    floodplain
    21 maps are a product of several decades of work and
    22 endeavors to improve their accuracy.
    23 I would like to offer now some considerations
    24 and options for mapping
    floodplains, other than the 100
    70
    1 year event. There's a broad spectrum of procedures and
    2 models for calculating both discharge and flood
    3 elevations. The more accuracy needed and more data
    4 needed, the more time needed for the calculations and
    5 modeling, and hence the greater cost. The standard of
    6 accuracy that is required for the determination of the
    7 flood event and the boundary of the
    floodplain will
    8 significantly effect the cost of developing this
    9 information. Delineating approximate 10 or 25 year
    10
    floodplain boundaries on the basis of topography shown on
    11 existing maps is not a likely option. In areas where
    12 engineering studies have not been performed, the
    13 boundaries of 100 year
    floodplain, such as shown on this
    14 map, were estimated using approximate methods. With as a
    15 base mount and boundaries of approximate 100 year
    16
    floodplains, we're dealing with estimated features.
    17 However, lesser flood events do not leave a signature on
    18 the landscape and their boundaries may not be discerned
    19 from standard topography showed with 10 foot contour
    20 intervals. During significant flood events like the 100
    21 event, land cover may -- flow patterns during lesser
    22 flood events such as the 10 year or 25 year flood. The
    23 channel carries larger portion of the flood volume and
    24 will have a more significant role in defining flood
    71
    1 elevations. Channel geometry may vary significantly from
    2 one occasion to another along the river. Calculations
    3 and
    floodplain elevation and transferring that
    4 information to maps or boundary on property will require
    5 services of qualified civil engineers and land surveyors.
    6 It would include calculations or other frequency
    7 discharge of the site. A survey of the site to measure
    8 land evaluations, the cross section geometry and keeping
    9 in mind that the longer -- or longer the stream or river
    10 involved, the more cross sections would have to be
    11 measured. Third, for the development of models -- sorry,
    12 for the development of model stream -- for the
    13 development of a model to calculate flood elevations or
    14 the flood profiles, standard computer programs WSP 2 or
    15
    Wispo or Heck, two national flood insurance programs
    16 could be used four the ten year or other frequency flood
    17 evaluations estimated along the stream or river course
    18 would then have to be translated to the land elevation to
    19 determine that actual boundary of the
    floodplain on the
    20 property.
    21 A few other comments and observations, flood
    22 elevations vary along a stream or river, and a range of
    23 elevations may be needed depending on the length of the
    24 property adjacent to a stream or river. The cost of an
    72
    1 elevation survey of a property will be effected, whether
    2 or not it is, must be tied to a
    monumented data, such as
    3 NGB 1989 used by the geological survey, or if it's deemed
    4 on a local landmark. Topographic contours showed on
    5 topographic maps are becoming less frequent. They have
    6 not been updated for as many as 20 years, and specific
    7 funding at state or local levels will be needed to
    8 continue updates on those maps. Other options for
    9 delineating
    floodplains, debris lines or high watermarks,
    10 might provide a rough guide for a two or three year
    11 frequency event; however, without some measurement of
    12 discharge or engineering calculations, there will be
    13 little basis of the frequency of that flood event.
    14 And I would like to offer this summary of my
    15 comments, state wide
    floodplains exist only for the one
    16 year
    floodplain. State wide
    floodplain mapping for other
    17 frequency events does not exist. The 100 year
    floodplain
    18 is the standard used by the federal and state government
    19 in Illinois for
    floodplain management. The calculations
    20 of
    floodplain evaluations and development of
    21 corresponding maps require data flexion and services of
    22 qualified engineers and land surveyors. And finally,
    23 cost and effort to develop
    floodplain elevations is
    24 significantly effected by the standards of -- standards
    73
    1 of accuracy and the methods it will be specified.
    2
    3 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you, Ms.
    McConkey.
    4
    5 MS. MCCONKEY: I do have an eight and a half
    6 by 11, if you would like a copy of it?
    7
    8 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Yes, if you would like to
    9 bring it forward. Let the record reflect, Ms.
    McConkey
    10 has the eight by 11 flood area, and has been marked as
    11 Exhibit Number 66 for the record.
    12 Doctor Marlin, would you like to make your
    13 final comments, or do you have anything else?
    14
    15 MR. MARLIN: I believe the only thing we have
    16 left is testimony on the map, the amount of area effected
    17 by setbacks. Do you want to do that now?
    18
    19 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: All right. I think we'll
    20 do it then after break, how does that sound? Because
    21 what we would like to do then is go in and we're going to
    22 start to see if there's any questions from the members of
    23 the audience. And like I said earlier, if you have a
    24 question for anyone, all you need to do is raise your
    74
    1 hand, wait till I acknowledge you and then we'll ask you
    2 to come forward. So what we're going to do now is take a
    3 five minute break. If you have any informal questions
    4 that you would like to approach the agencies about, I'm
    5 sure they're more than willing to talk to you. Thank
    6 you.
    7
    8 (At this time a break was taken.)
    9
    10 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: I would like to go back
    11 on the record. What we're going to do now is, going to
    12 start direct questions of agencies who have now
    13 testified. I'll start with some initials questions with
    14 the board, and some of the attorneys, and then we're
    15 going to look to the audience and we'll start with if you
    16 have any questions for any of the members of the panel or
    17 anyone who has testified. So if we could just begin.
    18 Are there any questions from the members of
    19 the board?
    20
    21 MS. MANNING: Mr.
    Warrington, thank you for
    22 your summary of the laws and programs in the other
    23 states. Particularly, my question was: On part of your
    24 table, you have listed whether a permit is required or
    75
    1 not, and you use the word, I think, Missouri on construct
    2 or operate -- I guess in Minnesota. My question is:
    3 When you use the term permit, are you generally referring
    4 to a state permit program specific to the use of animal
    5 waste facilities or a federally developed permit here?
    6
    7 MR. WARRINGTON: I believe it refers to both
    8 or either. If there's any permit required, either
    9 federal or state.
    10
    11 MS. MANNING: And we can
    crosscheck reference
    12 these with the regulations themselves. I was just
    13 wondering what you were cross referencing there. Thank
    14 you.
    15
    16 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Mr.
    Meyer.
    17
    18 MR. MEYER: First of all, I would like to ask
    19 permission to introduce a document. I'd like to
    20 introduce waste treatment odors energy, which was held in
    21 Oklahoma in March of this year. I would like to briefly
    22 speak about this document. It was cosponsored by
    23 National Resources of the state of Oklahoma, Oklahoma
    24 Association Cooperative, Oklahoma Department of
    76
    1 Agriculture, Oklahoma consult the western regional
    2
    biomass energy program, Oklahoma Agriculture
    3 Experimentation, Oklahoma State University and Oklahoma
    4 Cooperative Service, Oklahoma State University.
    5 In this document, it indicates that recovery
    6 methane is economically productive. I have -- I have
    7 some copies of this, Ms. Chairman, that we can make
    8 available. But I -- it just seems to me that we're not
    9 taking advantage of natural resource, which is methane,
    10 which is produced by the hogs and their livestock. And
    11 the only thing that has to be done is rudimentary
    12 engineering, consists of putting a cover on the -- on the
    13 lagoon and then transferring the gas to some use in
    14 heat -- be it heating or some sort of boiler. And if
    15 there's a greenhouse effect, methane is 22 times more
    16 reactive than carbon dioxide. And if there's an odor
    17 problem associated with swine production, collection of
    18 the gas would eliminate the production of odor.
    19 Now it seems to me that the only solution
    20 that there is to the odor problem as presented to date is
    21 a setback. And a setback is a prohibition. And the use
    22 of
    digestives is an alternative. And I believe -- I
    23 haven't read any testimony, say one person who -- who has
    24 even mentioned odor. Now you can take a cross section of
    77
    1 the public that is here that isn't represented by
    2 ourselves and other governmental officials, I don't think
    3 there's a person here that is interested in water
    4 pollution problems, that they're all interested in odor
    5 problems.
    6 And I wish that the Illinois EPA, the
    7 Department of Agriculture, and Department of Natural
    8 Resources would respond to me in writing concerning
    9 methane production per unit in any information that you
    10 can find concerning the production and use of digestive
    11 gas, and any associated material that would be -- that
    12 would be available. Now I realize that this is -- this
    13 is a quote/unquote sacred cow that no one wants to talk
    14 about, just because of the natural production of methane.
    15 No one wants to regulate that.
    16 But as I said, if there's a greenhouse
    17 effect, livestock production of swine probably, I would
    18 guess, produces more methane than the state of Illinois,
    19 than landfills do which are regulated. And the trick is
    20 to regulate the facilities that could not afford it.
    21 Those that can not economically afford it. I don't see
    22 no reason why we don't require them to collect -- collect
    23 digestive gas. And according to this report, there's a
    24 cutoff where you make money. And I'd just like to hear
    78
    1 your comments on it. Thank you.
    2
    3 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you, board member
    4
    Meyer. I would like to show for the record, that the
    5 document that Mr.
    Meyer was referring to, swine waste
    6 treatment, odors, energy and economic workshop has been
    7 marked and entered into the record as Exhibit Number 67.
    8 And members of public, if there are any
    9 exhibits that you would like a copy of, please contact
    10 the board and note what number it is or the title, what
    11 you can remember of it, and then you can request a copy
    12 of it from the board. I only have usually one copy up
    13 here. Sometimes we have a few for the agencies. But if
    14 you would like a copy of anything, of course, you can
    15 request it at the board's address.
    16 Would any of the agencies like to comment now
    17 or reserve their comments in writing?
    18
    19 MS. MANNING: Other testimony in the record,
    20 as you recall, on the issuing of methane from Dr.
    21
    Schafling there at our Galesburg hearing, if I'm not
    22 mistaken.
    23
    24 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Yes.
    79
    1 MR. WARRINGTON: We've looked at that and put
    2 them in ours.
    3
    4 MR. BORUFF: Department of Agriculture will
    5 do the same. We'll review the literature what we'll have
    6 and meet board member
    Meyer's request.
    7
    8 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Any other questions from
    9 members on the board?
    10
    11 MS. MANNING: For Mr.
    Kabillski, if I could
    12 ask you questions on the EQIP? Thank you very much for
    13 coming today. It was very nice for you to be here. It's
    14 not often that we get a federal government official to
    15 offer your sort of statement going on in our proceeding.
    16 Thank you for that.
    17 I'm not sure I understand though with the two
    18 areas that you say are being designated for livestock
    19 waste issues. What do you mean by the two? You mean two
    20 geological regions of the state, or two areas of
    21 significance on the livestock management area?
    22
    23 MR. KABILLSKI: When the program was set up,
    24 it called for conservation priority areas, and then it
    80
    1 called for what we call natural resource priority,
    2 concerns two separate entities. And when that was set
    3 up, it was established funding of 65 percent of all the
    4 money to go for the conservation areas, and 35 percent to
    5 go to these resource concerns. 35 percent covers all
    6 counties in the state. The 65 percent only covers the
    7 conservation priority areas that are identified.
    8
    9 MS. MANNING: Okay. And you identified two
    10 of them being livestock management, livestock waste
    11 issues?
    12
    13 MR. KABILLSKI: That's correct.
    14
    15 MS. MANNING: Are those two separate areas of
    16 the state then?
    17
    18 MR. KABILLSKI: Yes.
    19
    20 MS. MANNING: Where are those areas?
    21
    22 MR. KABILLSKI: Those cover about 35 counties
    23 in the Northwest to the central part of the state, and
    24 then another 17 counties or a little more than that in
    81
    1 the Southwest section of the state. Those were the
    2 conservation priority areas identified that were
    3 submitted that had the greatest number of animal numbers
    4 within those counties, where we thought the problems
    5 would be the greatest.
    6
    7 MS. MANNING: Is there an issue in terms of
    8 direction of federal dollars in terms of size and
    9 facility, and is there -- is there some sort of movement
    10 going on within the federal government to delineate a
    11 specific size and facility that would or would not be
    12 eligible for funds?
    13
    14 MR. KABILLSKI: Last Fall, there was a
    15 proposal coming from Washington that asked each of the
    16 state technical committees at the state level to make
    17 recommendations for defining what a large livestock
    18 facility would be. And at that time, there was a lot of
    19 inconsistencies among the states across the country. We
    20 here in Illinois called a task force together to try to
    21 bring various sides from one end to the other end of the
    22 spectrum to come to some consensus. At this time, we --
    23 that group had not come to a one number figure, and in
    24 the process of that task force, we received word from
    82
    1 national headquarters that the secretary of agriculture
    2 asked the state technical committees not to make
    3 recommendations to the state conservation at this time.
    4 In the final rules, we may have further guidance as to
    5 range. We don't know exactly what the secretary will
    6 propose. At that time then, maybe there will be a
    7 proposal that the states then would identify a specific
    8 number, and we do not have that at this time.
    9
    10 MS. MANNING: Okay. Thank you.
    11
    12 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Okay. Thank you. You
    13 can sit down. Now I ask if there's any members of the
    14 audience that have a question? Yes, sir, come forward,
    15 and if you know who your question is directed to, that
    16 would be helpful.
    17
    18 MR. THEESFED: Thomas
    Theesfed, and I
    19 would like to ask a question of the gentleman from the
    20 Illinois EPA on the setback of the facilities. I would
    21 like to know what size those units were, and how you
    22 arrived at the distance for the setback and when those
    23 figures were compiled.
    24
    83
    1 MR. WARRINGTON: Are you referring to the
    2 setback numbers on the livestock facility?
    3
    4 MR. THEESFED: Yes.
    5
    6 MR. WARRINGTON: I didn't directly
    7 participate in the advisory committee, my boss did, so I
    8 think I'm going to have to pass this one to you,
    Chet.
    9
    10 MR. BORUFF: Number one, if I could restate
    11 what I heard you ask: You would like to know what
    12 specifically are the setback distances as outlined in
    13 Livestock Management Facility Act?
    14
    15 MR. THEESFED: No, I would like to know how
    16 you arrived at those particular figures, and what figures
    17 were used and how they were compiled.
    18
    19 MR. BORUFF: Actually, distances themselves
    20 as in the act, were arrived as part of the legislative
    21 process that came to us as the final bill then for the
    22 Illinois General Assembly. And so what we have been
    23 dealing with here with the proposed rules is working
    24 within that framework of the General Assembly set out in
    84
    1 those guidelines. I can restate to you what those
    2 distances are, but evidently you want more than that.
    3 But I really can't -- I don't feel qualified to speak to
    4 how those evolved over a period of time, but what you're
    5 dealing with here in the proposed rule.
    6
    7 MR. THEESFED: I was generally aware of the
    8 distances, I was just wanting to know how they were
    9 Arrived at and what figures were used to derive those.
    10
    11 MR. BORUFF: As a basis, since there was
    12 already a setback provision, title 35 of the Illinois
    13 Environmental Protection Act that was used as a basis,
    14 but I know some discussions later on through the
    15 legislative process, there was a feeling that units would
    16 increase in size, operation would increase in size, there
    17 should be incrementally larger setbacks, and that was
    18 provided for in this new act, which would expand. Shows
    19 setbacks for larger operations. I guess I could speak
    20 that the existing setbacks were -- entitled 35, were used
    21 as a base in which the General Assembly worked off of.
    22
    23 MR. THEESFED: Okay. Thank you.
    24
    85
    1 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you, sir. Anyone
    2 else in the audience who has a question? Okay, sir, come
    3 forward.
    4
    5 MR. LEONARD: My name is Jack Leonard, I have
    6 a question for any member of the -- on the board
    7 submitting testimony, and that question is: Do you or
    8 your immediate superior or any member of your immediate
    9 family have a financial interest in the operation of a
    10 life stock facility?
    11
    12 MR. BORUFF: I currently, besides my
    13 involvement with the Illinois Department of Agriculture,
    14 operate a cash grain operation in Rock Island County. At
    15 one point in time in my career, from the period of 1980
    16 to 1990 -- or excuse me, 1984, I did in fact raise
    17 livestock, both corn and hogs. I no longer have any
    18 financial interest in any ownership of any livestock,
    19 either in the state of Illinois or anywhere else. My
    20 farming interests are confined only to production of cash
    21 corn and cash soybeans.
    22
    23 MR. LEONARD: Would that also apply to your
    24 superior, to the best of your knowledge?
    86
    1
    2 MR. BORUFF: I don't feel qualified to speak
    3 for my superior's ownership in any operations or
    4 businesses outside of the department. I have no
    5 knowledge that I would feel qualified to speak to that.
    6
    7 MR. WARRINGTON: I know for myself, and to
    8 the best of my knowledge, not any of my superiors.
    9
    10 MR. MARLIN: No, my wife grew up on a farm,
    11 which is still in the farm with a handful of chickens,
    12 and I believe currently they have one donkey.
    13
    14 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you, sir. Anyone
    15 else in the audience that has a question of any of the
    16 witnesses that testified? Yes, Mr.
    Harrington.
    17
    18 MR. HARRINGTON: This question is going
    19 back --
    20 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Introduce yourself,
    21 please.
    22
    23 MR. HARRINGTON: Jim
    Harrington, for the
    24 Illinois pork producers, Illinois Beef Association,
    87
    1 Illinois Farm Bureau, and I just have a question of
    2 clarification on one of the definitions in the
    3 regulations that we didn't pick up on before, and the
    4 definition in particular we're talking about is livestock
    5 pasture operation. I believe -- believe it is on seven
    6 of 26 of the board's --
    7
    8 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Actually, page eight of
    9 36.
    10
    11 MR. HARRINGTON: I have a copy off the Net.
    12
    13 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Page eight of 36.
    14
    15 MR. HARRINGTON: And I'm wondering if -- I
    16 apologize for not having this in pre-filed question. If
    17 the department could comment on this definition and how
    18 it would apply to such things as winter pasturing, where
    19 the cattle are fed in field, or where the grass or soil
    20 or other vegetative cover may not be in place, and also
    21 how it would apply to such things as barnyards where
    22 animals are held prior to dairy farm, perhaps prior to
    23 milking?
    24
    88
    1 MR. BORUFF: I'll try as best I can to answer
    2 your question, referring to different sources in the act
    3 and also in the rules and your -- at least my
    4 understanding of what you're asking.
    5 First of all, I guess referring to section
    6 10.30 of the act itself, where it talks about Livestock
    7 Management Facility, but then it also says that livestock
    8 pasture operations, where animals are housed on a
    9 temporary basis, then it talks about several different
    10 areas that may be temporary are not subject to this act.
    11 So in answer to your question, you may want
    12 to clarify for me, but if it would be a pasture operation
    13 where those animals were being housed temporarily, it
    14 would be our feeling that it would be applicable to this
    15 act because of that section.
    16 Then, you know, I guess I would also refer to
    17 the post rule itself, and this would be at section --
    18 under the definitions but at 506.103, referring to
    19 definitions. And let me just read it
    outloud, that
    20 livestock pasture operation means a lot or facility other
    21 than aquatic animal production facility where crops,
    22 vegetation, forage growth or post harvest residues that
    23 are grown in place are sustained in the normal growing
    24 season over a substantial portion of the lot or facility,
    89
    1 and animals are not continuously confined or enclosed in
    2 a covered structure.
    3 So I don't know if either one of those goes
    4 towards answering your question; probably I haven't. Not
    5 that I meant to avoid it, but I'm not sure what the
    6 question was.
    7
    8 MR. HARRINGTON: Starting with subpart A of
    9 the definition in the regulations, I do not believe
    10 that's contained in the act, is that correct? Where it
    11 says crops, vegetation, forage growth.
    12
    13 MR. BORUFF: I don't believe that it is.
    14 We're going to look here and see. That would not be in
    15 the act. The act itself did not include those specific
    16 definitions, so it was our feeling, in order for
    17 clarification, to work toward that.
    18
    19 MR. HARRINGTON: I'm trying to clarify this
    20 for clarification: If livestock was left in a pasture or
    21 in the field during the winter and the crop coverage is
    22 warn down, it can still be a pasture operation, is that
    23 correct?
    24
    90
    1 MR. BORUFF: I believe it would, because in
    2 the rule it talks about crops, vegetation, forage growth
    3 or post harvest residues, so I believe it would include
    4 that as well.
    5
    6 MR. HARRINGTON: It says, sustained in the
    7 normal growing season, so that would mean outside the
    8 normal growing season they would not have to be
    9 sustained?
    10
    11 MR. BORUFF: Correct, it would be possible to
    12 sustain under those situations.
    13
    14 MR. HARRINGTON: And then in subpart B, it
    15 says animals are not continuously confined or enclosed in
    16 a covered structure; does continuously confined refer
    17 also to be in a covered structure?
    18
    19 MR. BORUFF: I believe the concept would
    20 not -- continuously confine would refer to those animals
    21 which are free to roam from time to time outside the
    22 building that provides them shelter or may be from time
    23 to time turned out as part of management. But as opposed
    24 to that, continuously confined would be livestock that
    91
    1 day in and day out are under cover within that building.
    2
    3 MR. HARRINGTON: So if the livestock are not
    4 continuously under cover and are free to roam in the
    5 field, then that would be a livestock pasture operation?
    6
    7 MR. BORUFF: That would be my interpretation
    8 of the rules as were posed.
    9
    10 MR. HARRINGTON: Are there any other
    11 differing interpretations from any others of the panel?
    12
    13 MR. WARRINGTON: I think the definition has
    14 been placed for a long time, 521.0225. I believe that's
    15 probably taken from the federal register definition of
    16 concentrated effort. So I probably suggest, check some
    17 of the case law and preambles to that regulation to get
    18 some more detail.
    19
    20 MR. HARRINGTON: I'm sure that's probably
    21 where it's come from, but I'm trying to determine what is
    22 intended under the Livestock Management Act under these
    23 regulations today, so that the record will be clear when
    24 we go forward in the future. And I'm not here
    92
    1 necessarily to argue what the definition is, I'm trying
    2 to make sure we understand it.
    3
    4 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Mr.
    Warrington, do you
    5 have anything further?
    6
    7 MR. WARRINGTON: No.
    8
    9 MR. MARLIN: We're not prepared right now to
    10 get into great detail about this, but pasture does
    11 include the vegetative live component. And as I heard
    12 the last part of your question, whether or not the
    13 animals are under cover and free to roam, and if free to
    14 roam includes a vegetative live cover, probably wouldn't
    15 have a problem.
    16
    17 MR. HARRINGTON: Would you agree, vegetative
    18 live cover is maintained during the growing season, that
    19 is sufficient under this definition?
    20
    21 MR. MARLIN: I'm not really prepared to
    22 comment on that at this point in time.
    23
    24 MR. HARRINGTON: Thank you. I have no
    93
    1 further questions.
    2
    3 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you, Mr.
    4
    Harrington.
    5 Any other questions from any members of the
    6 audience? Yes, ma'am, would you come forward.
    7
    8 MS. EMMETT: My name is Doris Emmett, and I
    9 would like to ask a question of Mr.
    Boruff. In his
    10 testimony, he said -- and I think he submitted it as
    11 document, number 55, that the Department of Agriculture
    12 has come up with a change in the setback language. I
    13 probably don't have the numbers right, text 506.70-A or
    14 701, and that two sections be removed. Could he
    15 elaborate on the difference in their setback language?
    16
    17 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: You're correct, it was
    18 Exhibit Number 55.
    19
    20 MR. BORUFF: Yes. And at a previous hearing,
    21 a comment, I believe, came from a board member, was made
    22 to the effect that would our department consider adding
    23 to the rules either a part or all of the setback language
    24 as it was written specifically in the act as a part of
    94
    1 the rule. I believe that probably the intent of that
    2 request was that it would make it easier for someone who
    3 was trying to understand the rules, if they had language
    4 there as well. Because our proposed rules, when we first
    5 provided the board with, didn't include all that
    6 language. And so we considered their request and felt
    7 that it was a valid request.
    8 So basically what we have done then is
    9 expanded post rule at that section as reversed setbacks
    10 and have simply proposed to the board through our exhibit
    11 that all of that language pertain to setbacks be taken
    12 directly from the act and also repeated within that
    13 section as well.
    14 Now when I commented in my statement about
    15 the exhibit, that would be removing a couple of those.
    16 Let me look at the rule here to get the exact citation
    17 here for you. But in summary, in our proposed rule,
    18 there were a couple of letters or lines that were
    19 directly taken from a portion of the definitions in the
    20 act. Had we not removed those two sections at the same
    21 time that we amended our proposal by adding back to the
    22 language, then there would have been those two letters
    23 which basically would have been a redundant repeat of
    24 what was already there. And so it was just in -- my
    95
    1 comment to the board was to take those two letters out so
    2 it wouldn't be redundant. But that effect with the
    3 proposal that we have to the board, that section,
    4 pertaining to setbacks will include all the language as
    5 it is currently found in the Livestock Management
    6 Facilities Act.
    7
    8 MS. EMMETT: So what is the Department of
    9 Agriculture recommending as the setback distances?
    10
    11 MR. BORUFF: We're recommending the setback
    12 distances as outlined in the Livestock Management
    13 Facilities Act. We're not making any changes to any
    14 distances at all. Our amendment was dealing basically
    15 with the change where those would be found or the
    16 inclusion of additional language within the rules. We're
    17 not recommending any changes to the setback distances,
    18 and that's established by statute.
    19
    20 MS. EMMETT: Thank you.
    21
    22 MS. MANNING: I'd like to mention that
    23 Champaign County Chairman
    Becker and Chuck
    Arbuckle are
    24 here. Are you still here? Hi. Welcome. I just wanted
    96
    1 to say welcome.
    2
    3 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Any member of the public
    4 that are here today that would like to ask a question?
    5 Yes, ma'am, please come forward.
    6
    7 MS. RACE: My name is Judy Race, I have a
    8 question for any member of the board. Can any one of you
    9 define for me the definition of plume, and how setbacks
    10 will protect the neighboring public from plume events?
    11
    12 MR. BORUFF: I will respond to that, because
    13 it looked like nobody else was going to. The term plume
    14 doesn't occur, to my knowledge, within the act or rules,
    15 and as such isn't defined. So I'm not even -- I have an
    16 idea what the concept of plume is, but we can't
    17 officially respond to something that isn't in the act or
    18 the rules. Setbacks we've dealt with in the rules, are
    19 clearly defined within the legislation, and that's what
    20 the rules refer to.
    21
    22 MS. RACE: So plumes weren't taken into
    23 account when setbacks were arrived at?
    24
    97
    1 MR. BORUFF: I'm assuming the use of the word
    2 plume, you're talking about some relative area of
    3 coverage of landscaping odor or something like that. So
    4 I guess if you could help me with the definition of plume
    5 or what you're meaning there.
    6
    7 MS. RACE: Sure. My reading of Dr.
    8
    Schafling, he describes plumes as originating maybe over
    9 the lagoon, and full concentration can be picked up and
    10 carried for quite a distance, and then they settle for
    11 full concentration for setbacks.
    12
    13 MR. BORUFF: I guess I would comment that the
    14 whole concept of setbacks is to provide for
    delusional
    15 effect for over a period of area as an operation and
    16 corresponding home or business are separated. I believe
    17 intent of the act was to allow for larger increments of
    18 setback from larger operations. Also towards the end,
    19 the act speaks with a difference of setback as it applies
    20 for a single residence, as a populated area or common
    21 source of semblance. I believe that concept of plume,
    22 now that I've explained it, was taken into consideration
    23 by the General Assembly when they look at the increase of
    24
    implemental setbacks.
    98
    1 MS. RACE: My understand, plume can carry for
    2 greater than one mile and setbacks don't address that
    3 distance.
    4
    5 MR. BORUFF: Within the act, the largest
    6 setback distance would be a one mile setback, would be
    7 from the very largest operations as defined by the act
    8 from a populated area.
    9
    10 MS. RACE: Those are greater than 700?
    11
    12 MR. BORUFF: 700 animal units.
    13
    14 MS. RACE: Do you have any idea how many of
    15 that size we have in Illinois?
    16
    17 MR. BORUFF: No, we don't, because it does
    18 not exist in the state place of registration where we
    19 know the size of operations in general, and so I couldn't
    20 specifically tell you if or how many there would be of
    21 that size.
    22
    23 MS. RACE: Thank you.
    24
    99
    1 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you, Ms. Rice.
    2 Any other questions? Yes, sir, would you
    3 come forward?
    4
    5 MR. MCLINDEN: My name is Lynn
    McLinden,
    6 speaking as a citizen. I've just obtained a copy of
    7 these proposed regulations this morning, and only in the
    8 last 20 minutes I've started scanning a few of the pages,
    9 but it appears that these are the current emergency
    10 regulations which essentially are now being proposed to
    11 become permanent, is that essentially the case?
    12
    13 MR. BORUFF: If I could, let me give you a
    14 lit bit of history to where I believe we've come from to
    15 arrive at where we are today. Livestock Management
    16 Facilities Act, which was passed and signed into
    17 regulation on May 21st, 1976. Within that said -- within
    18 six months, the advisory committee made up of four
    19 departments, and our department chair would propose to
    20 the board the permanent rules, which they would then
    21 adopt in a six month period for final adoption by May
    22 21st, 1997. And so our department was working toward
    23 that process.
    24 And in fact, my summary comments earlier on
    100
    1 mentioned that we were working and meeting in the Fall of
    2 '96. There were some concerns raised for various areas
    3 through the General Assembly, but until such time as the
    4 rules were completed, the state was without regulations
    5 that were intended by this act. And so we have been kind
    6 of deviated for a period of time to develop emergency
    7 rules, which we then proposed to the Pollution Control
    8 Board, and they adopt and became effective as of October
    9 31st of 1996.
    10 And due to a legislative action that was
    11 taken a few weeks ago, those emergency rules are in
    12 effect until such time as the permanent rules would
    13 replace them. So as we were going through that emergency
    14 rule making process, we had already met with the advisory
    15 committee. We had received a great deal of information
    16 and recommendations that we were taking into
    17 consideration. So what we chose to do as department
    18 advisory committee, were to look at those areas of the
    19 act, and if they were in fact regulations that were
    20 missing, we looked to those areas that would have the
    21 most immediate impact possibly to environmental concerns
    22 to the state; areas such as lagoon registration, siting
    23 and design criteria, waste management plans, those areas
    24 where thought the greatest potential for environmental
    101
    1 impact. We wrote our emergency rules and proposed those
    2 to the board, which they subsequently adopted.
    3 At that point in time, our committee
    4 basically got on a course of action to develop the
    5 proposed rules. And the committee felt that in those
    6 emergency rules, we had to cover much of what would be
    7 proposed as current rules. So when you compare the two,
    8 the emergency rules do not include all the sections that
    9 the permanent rules do. Those are the sections that
    10 didn't have immediate environmental concerns we were
    11 looking at last August. Also in the proposed rules that
    12 they are talking to the board about here, there were a
    13 few minor changes where they have considered the
    14 emergency rules and make some changes; we hope some
    15 improvements upon. That's why they look similar but
    16 there may be some differences.
    17
    18 MR. MCLINDEN: Thank you. That's actually
    19 more than I probably can absorb on my feet here but --
    20
    21 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: That's okay, you can
    22 download it later.
    23
    24 MR. MCLINDEN: For point of clarification in
    102
    1 what is labeled section -- the subpart E labeled
    2 penalties, I'm concerned about the permanent rules that
    3 will be adopted concerning enforcement, and this is the
    4 subsection regarding penalty -- subpart regarding
    5 penalties and the principle enforcement mechanism appears
    6 to be anticipating a construction cease and desist order,
    7 and later operational cease and desist order. As a point
    8 of information, is anyone able to clarify to me what are
    9 the consequences to the owner or operator for violating a
    10 cease and desist order?
    11
    12 MR. BORUFF: Well, of course, the cease and
    13 desist order itself would be the cessation of all
    14 business activity on that livestock operation. As far as
    15 violation over and above that, would be --
    16
    17 MR. MCLINDEN: Let's assume they don't
    18 respond, and agree and comply with the cease and desist
    19 order; in such a case, what might be the consequences?
    20
    21 MR. BORUFF: It's our opinion that at that
    22 point in time, there would be civil penalties and civil
    23 procedures that would be applicable.
    24
    103
    1 MR. MCLINDEN: And such penalty procedures,
    2 are those in general state law, or would those be
    3 specific procedures included as part of these
    4 regulations?
    5
    6 MR. BORUFF: It was my understanding that
    7 those would be already existing in the state law.
    8
    9 MR. MCLINDEN: Okay. Another point -- a
    10 question really, the next subpart F entitled financial
    11 responsibility, I would assume that an operation with
    12 such possible environmental and other adverse
    13 consequences would surely have some sort of penalties
    14 contingent upon failure to comply with regulations, so I
    15 was particularly interested in scanning the section, and
    16 it appears that there's a requirement in the state law
    17 which these regulations are to implement requirement for
    18 applying a surety bond or some other evidence of surety.
    19 And in section 506.603, entitled level of surety, I find
    20 that existing wording rather vague. This is on the top
    21 half of page 35.
    22
    23 MR. BORUFF: Yeah, I see where you're reading
    24 from.
    104
    1
    2 MR. MCLINDEN: I wonder if there's any
    3 intention to clarify this section, .603?
    4
    5 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Are you referring to 603
    6 A or B, or both?
    7
    8 MR. MCLINDEN: Each of them separately, and
    9 in combination primarily. The total impact.
    10
    11 MR. BORUFF: I guess I would first comment on
    12 506.603-A, and is -- that was taken directly from the
    13 Livestock Management Facility Act where it was the
    14 General Assembly's intention there that level of surety
    15 be based on the size of the lagoon, the size being the
    16 bigger the lagoon, of course, the higher the possibility
    17 for some type of impact, there are a higher level of
    18 surety. So that explains A.
    19 B, I'll read it, for those who don't have the
    20 rules in front of them: Unless otherwise provided for by
    21 board regulations, department may adopt and promulgate
    22 all procedures and criteria reasonably necessary to
    23 perform its duties and responsibilities under this
    24 subpart.
    105
    1 What we asked to the board, their concurrence
    2 with our proposal that in this section and others in the
    3 act, to undertake another process where -- like the case
    4 here, formula or some type of termination would be
    5 developed on what level of surety and operation to put
    6 forth to cover that financial responsibility section.
    7
    8 MR. MCLINDEN: So this is to occur in the
    9 future. And the formal request of such further hearings
    10 and further regulation, I don't see as a formal part of
    11 this document, but are you in essence incorporating that
    12 in this hearing as part of your Department of
    13 Agriculture's requests to the Pollution Control Board?
    14
    15 MR. BORUFF: Yes, that's been our intent,
    16 that we propose and we're asking the --
    17
    18 MR. MCLINDEN: Will there be further public
    19 hearings on a regional basis offering public input?
    20
    21 MR. BORUFF: Yes, there would be. Under the
    22 authorities given to us under the Administrative
    23 Procedures Act, we have the act to make rules and we do
    24 such on a routine basis under a number of different
    106
    1 regulatory programs we're responsible for. And a part of
    2 those rules, upon being developed, would be printed in
    3 the state register, and then on the Illinois register and
    4 also there are public comment periods and areas, that
    5 would be our intent of the procedures.
    6
    7 MR. MCLINDEN: Could you give us any preview
    8 of the rough level of surety that might be presently
    9 contemplated? This is where the rubber hits the road.
    10 And so far in the existing document, all I see in
    11 financial terms, one time only, potential of $100 fine.
    12 Other than that, there seems to be no existing
    13 quantification of a dollar amount or any formula leading
    14 to a dollar amount. And can you give us maybe a preview
    15 of some of the thinking that is being directed in this --
    16 on this issue?
    17
    18 MR. BORUFF: I wouldn't feel qualified at
    19 this point in time to give you a dollar figure or some
    20 type of a rough sketch of what that might involve. I
    21 don't think it would be appropriate at this time.
    22 One thing I might comment on though, on
    23 your -- you did mention the penalty that's provided
    24 within the law, that's another area, but also I think
    107
    1 it's important to remember that we currently have
    2 existing statutes, the size of this one in state law that
    3 provide for penalties should pollution occur, they're
    4 administered and have been by the Illinois EPA. If an
    5 operation has some environmental impact, they would also
    6 fall under those penalties which are existing under their
    7 act.
    8
    9 MR. MCLINDEN: That's somewhat reassuring and
    10 comforting.
    11 I have one final brief point, if there's
    12 time?
    13
    14 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Certainly.
    15
    16 MR. MCLINDEN: The issue of the setbacks is
    17 addressed to some extent by some language I found near
    18 the end of this document relating to -- I see here now on
    19 the lower half of page 35. I'm looking at subpart G,
    20 section 506.702, item B, which says: A setback may be
    21 decreased when waivers are obtained from owners of
    22 residences that are occupied and located in the setback
    23 area. I interpret that as language lifted directly from
    24 the state law.
    108
    1 MR. BORUFF: That's correct to state that for
    2 that particular section, section 35 of the act, letter G.
    3
    4 MR. MCLINDEN: So my question appears -- this
    5 appears to raise the possibility that an operator or
    6 owner of a facility, if he's resourceful, and energetic,
    7 and persuasive enough, may have the possibility of
    8 basically convincing the adjacent neighbors into signing
    9 an agreement that they would be happy with a waiver of
    10 otherwise required setback. And so this appears to be a
    11 loophole which possibly may not ever be exploited, but
    12 let's think of the worst case. Is it in fact a potential
    13 loophole where an operator could circumvent the intent of
    14 the otherwise existing regulation on setback distance?
    15
    16 MR. BORUFF: I don't feel qualified to make a
    17 value judgment on what may or may not be a loophole.
    18 Simply, our rules incorporate language taken directly
    19 from the act itself.
    20
    21 MR. MCLINDEN: Well, the next item, C,
    22 appears to give you some wiggle room in the area of
    23 adopting regulations implementing the previous part B.
    24 So it appears that is an opportunity where you might
    109
    1 potentially explore a remedy of a potential problem. I
    2 would just offer that as a friendly suggestion.
    3
    4 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Just so you note that
    5 capitalization is statutory language.
    6
    7 MR. MCLINDEN: That's what I intended.
    8
    9 MS. MANNING: I have a little follow-up to
    10 the questioner's question, particularly on financial
    11 assurance to the Department of Agriculture. I understand
    12 the Department of Agriculture's proposals. I think the
    13 board generally understands what you're proposing we do.
    14 What I have some concern with and as we've
    15 been talking amongst the board, what we have some concern
    16 with, the particular requirement that says surety
    17 instruments required under the section shall be acquired
    18 under the rule after the document of this act. How you
    19 feel your proposal to allow you to do rule making
    20 subsequent to our rule making is consistent with this
    21 provision of the act, which suggests to me that once
    22 these rules are effective, surety instruments should be
    23 in place.
    24
    110
    1 MR. BORUFF: Our proposal takes into account
    2 a couple of realities, I guess, that the industry is
    3 facing, that probably at the time the law itself was
    4 enacted weren't known at that time. Because when you
    5 look at the list of surety instruments, it lists
    6 instruments or bonds. I think it refers to -- yeah, one
    7 commercial insurance, a third option, a surety bond.
    8 Upon investigation of what our department and
    9 other industry, and then the folks in the industry have
    10 found, is that those type of commercially available
    11 instruments don't exist within the purchase, either a
    12 bond or insurance policy of some type. You think it's
    13 possibly envisioned at the time. What that leaves then
    14 are things like guarantee a letter of credit, or
    15 certificate of deposit or some other cash instrument.
    16 And our intent through subsequent rule making
    17 process, determine what level of cash collateral
    18 essentially an operator would have to put forth to
    19 provide that security, and how would it be based upon,
    20 whether it would be volume or some actual tables or
    21 information. But there has to be some level for some
    22 type of formula for us to determine what level of surety
    23 an operation can afford. And that was something we would
    24 have to do in the subsequent ruling and to address.
    111
    1 MS. MANNING: And your answer to his question
    2 was, you don't have anything providing now in terms of
    3 what those formulas might be?
    4
    5 MR. BORUFF: That is correct.
    6
    7 MS. MANNING: Does the agency want to speak
    8 at all in terms of the financial assurances that are
    9 required and financial assurances required under 35 in
    10 any of the areas? Is there any information the agency
    11 expects to provide on the issue of financial assurance?
    12
    13 MR. WARRINGTON: We have been relying on the
    14 Department of Agriculture to determine these rules and
    15 for determining the available -- the type of financial
    16 assurance available and then required.
    17 We would like to note that from my experience
    18 in say landfill financial assurance, these rules actually
    19 go farther. That the landfill financial assurance is
    20 based on the cost to put a cap on the landfill, into
    21 installing monitoring wells and to monitor the ground
    22 water for a period of time. The landfill financial
    23 assurance rules don't require cleanup as these rules do.
    24 They do require the removal of soils and returned to an
    112
    1 alternative use.
    2
    3 MS. MANNING: Thank you. That's all the
    4 questions I have right now.
    5
    6 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Are there any other
    7 members of the public who have a question? Are there any
    8 other witnesses? Is there any members from the board of
    9 these witnesses? Yes, sir, Mr. Leonard.
    10
    11 MR. LEONARD: There is a provision in the
    12 Livestock Management Facilities Act for the alternate use
    13 of lagoon areas. I would like to know what alternative
    14 lagoon use could be done for that area, and there's a
    15 provision that a time period be allowed of two years
    16 before anything is done. I would like to have a comment
    17 for the board about what could be done with a lagoon that
    18 has been used for five years as an alternate use besides
    19 being a landfill?
    20
    21 MR. BORUFF: With the way we had attempted,
    22 the department that would -- such time as a lagoon would
    23 cease to be used for that function, we were not intending
    24 to anticipate all the future uses of that lagoon but
    113
    1 rather that the owner would come to us. And if it was
    2 not to be used as a lagoon anymore, they may have an
    3 alternative purpose for it, and it may not be out of the
    4 realm of possibility that the contents can be removed,
    5 may be used for some type of -- whatever the case might
    6 be. But if the new intended use did not provide for it
    7 to have any negative impact on the environment, we would
    8 have to do a case by case basis, not trying to anticipate
    9 what all the future uses a lagoon might be.
    10
    11 MR. LEONARD: Do you know why there's a two
    12 year provision? Why isn't there a more immediate cleanup
    13 or --
    14
    15 MR. BORUFF: As I recall, during the time
    16 when the bill was being developed, that the two year
    17 period was in there in case the farm was still intended
    18 to be used as a livestock operation, but there may have
    19 been a period of time between one internship and another,
    20 and that was, I believe, the intent at that time. If it
    21 was to be used by the new owner as livestock community,
    22 then that would allow that two year period for it to be
    23 used toward that regard.
    24
    114
    1 MR. LEONARD: Thank you.
    2
    3 MR. BORUFF: Your welcome.
    4
    5 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you, Mr. Leonard.
    6 Is there anyone in the office that has a question of any
    7 of the members? Yes sir.
    8
    9 MR. NICHOLS: My name is Elmer
    Nichols, and I
    10 would like to ask one question: It appears that you've
    11 covered the cleanup of the lagoon after it is no longer
    12 in use, and that they have to provide some financial
    13 security for that. But in my reading of the rule, it
    14 does not appear that you have included any financial
    15 security for the cleanup of a possible spill.
    16
    17 MR. BORUFF: I guess I would ask the
    18 representative from the EPA to maybe add, if they feel so
    19 inclined to do so, but under existing statute laws, most
    20 prior to the Livestock Management Facilities Act, there
    21 are provisions in place toward penalties should the
    22 provision occur. And so things that already existed this
    23 act here was to cover places or situations that weren't
    24 already covered in the state statute.
    115
    1 Rich, would you want to comment on that?
    2
    3 MR. WARRINGTON: We have had cases where
    4 spills have occurred or general contaminants are left.
    5 Both the courts, and circuit courts, have ordered
    6 cleanups and the remedy for that. And that cost comes
    7 out of the resources of whoever did the polluting.
    8
    9 MR. NICHOLS: But is it not true that in many
    10 cases, because some type of financial security wasn't
    11 posted ahead of time, that -- particularly in industry,
    12 and that's where we've had most of the problems, since
    13 this is relatively a new industry, that our tax dollars
    14 have been needed to clean those things up?
    15
    16 MR. WARRINGTON: Are you referring to things
    17 like hazardous waste and landfills?
    18
    19 MR. NICHOLS: Right.
    20
    21 MR. WARRINGTON: There are occasions where a
    22 responsible party cannot be found, or if found, don't
    23 have the present resources. So that on a federal level,
    24 there's a program designed to cleanup hazardous waste.
    116
    1 That program is funded by taxes on major generators and
    2 chemicals. Basically, it's paid for by the present
    3 chemical and oil industry.
    4
    5 MR. NICHOLS: Would it not be prudent to
    6 maybe in this case include that?
    7
    8 MR. WARRINGTON: That is the choice that the
    9 legislature department makes.
    10
    11 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you. Is there
    12 anyone in the audience that has a question?
    13 All right. At this time then, I'm going to
    14 dismiss this panel and we're going to call the following
    15 witnesses up to testify. These are people who have
    16 already filed pre-filed testimony or notified the board
    17 earlier they wished to testify today. After each of
    18 these have testified, then we'll break for lunch, and
    19 then we'll get to every one who is signed up to testify
    20 today.
    21 Will the following individuals please come
    22 forward: Terry
    Feldmann, William Gray, Phil Breaker,
    23 David Thompson, Judy Race, Bill Emmett and Janet Fritz.
    24
    117
    1 (Panel is sworn.)
    2
    3 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Begin with Mr.
    Feldmann.
    4
    5 MR. FELDMANN: My name is Terry
    Feldmann.
    6 I'm a May 1992 graduate of the University of Illinois
    7 College of Engineering, with a degree in Agricultural
    8 Engineer. I have worked with Animal Environment
    9 Specialists, Inc. as a consultant to livestock and
    10 poultry producers for over four years now. I help
    11 producers properly plan and optimize pork production
    12 systems utilizing sound science and technology.
    13 I was raised on a small farm in Madison
    14 County, Illinois, where we raised hogs and beef cattle,
    15 and my parents still do today, except they have
    16 officially left the pork industry like any others this
    17 past Fall. I learned early on that manure was a great
    18 fertilizer. Although spreading manure was not a great
    19 job, I did value it. I enjoyed raising pigs and watching
    20 them grow. Pigs did stink then and they still do today,
    21 but many things have a different smell. Personally, I
    22 find the odor from the grain processing facilities, about
    23 10 miles South of my home outside of Peoria, more
    24 offensive. If the wind is out of the Southwest, it
    118
    1 travels right up the river. I live with it, but I'd
    2 rather smell pigs.
    3 Overall, the rules submitted by the
    4 department are a major step toward protecting the
    5 environment and the livestock industry. My testimony
    6 will primarily address subparts A, B and C and their
    7 economic impact. Over the past few months, I have had
    8 several clients trying to register lagoons under the
    9 emergency rules. I have discussed several shortcomings
    10 of the emergency rules with various personnel at the
    11 Department of Agriculture, and hope that my testimony
    12 will help ensure that the permanent rules will not have
    13 the same shortcomings.
    14 First, I find that the calculation of an
    15 animal unit, as defined in section 506.103, does not
    16 equally compare the volume or organic waste strength, nor
    17 potential odor among the species listed. For example,
    18 1000 animal units of milk cows, swine over 55 pounds, and
    19 swine under 55 pounds produce the following volumes,
    20 volatile solids and pounds of nitrogen per day: 714 milk
    21 cows, 1200 pound average, produced 1111 cubic feet, 7262
    22 pounds of volatile solids, and 385 pounds of nitrogen.
    23 2500 swine over 55 pounds, 350 pound average, typical
    24 gestating sow, produced 480 cubic feet, 1864 pounds of
    119
    1 volatile solids, and 166 pounds of nitrogen. Three
    2 thousand -- 33,333 swine under 55 pounds, a 30 pound
    3 animal is used as an average for the example, produced
    4 1700 cubic feet, 8800 pounds of volatile solids, 600
    5 pounds of nitrogen.
    6 Although I see it as desirable to have a
    7 method to assess size of an enterprise for purposes such
    8 as setback distances, this should be an equal comparison
    9 among species.
    10 I praise the use of ASAE Engineer Practice,
    11 Design of Anaerobic Lagoons for Animal Waste Management,
    12 and the USDA-NRCS Waste Treatment Lagoon Field Office
    13 Technical Guide. The act and rules should, however, use
    14 the most recent publication, which is ASAE EP403.2, which
    15 is incidentally an ANSI approved standard, instead of the
    16 ASAE EP403.1. The main difference between the two
    17 publications is that EP403.1 has a table listing six
    18 species of animals with manure production characteristics
    19 which was omitted from the more recent EP4403.2. This
    20 table, Daily Manure Production by Livestock Per 1000
    21 Pounds of Body Weight, is incomplete. It lists
    22 production rates for manure volume, volatile solids and
    23 total solids for feeder swine, dairy, poultry, feeder
    24 sheep or feeder beef, sheep and horse. It does not
    120
    1 include specific rates for gestating sow, lactating sow
    2 and litter, and nursery pig.
    3 The production rates for sows and nursery
    4 pigs is drastically different from feeder pigs. Sows
    5 generally have a lower rate because they're limit fed,
    6 and nursery pigs have a higher production rate per pound
    7 of body weight. I suggest the use of the tables in
    8 chapter four of the USDA-NRCS Agricultural Waste
    9 Management Field Handbook, which is referenced for use by
    10 the USDA-NRCS Waste Treatment Lagoon Field Office
    11 Technical Guide. As an equal alternative, the rates, not
    12 necessarily the animal weights, found in the Midwest
    13 Plan Service 18, Livestock Waste Management Facilities
    14 Handbook are similar. I would estimate that over 95
    15 percent of the animal waste lagoons designed by engineers
    16 in this country are based upon these rates in these two
    17 publications rather than that listed in EP403.1. The
    18 table should be attached for comparison.
    19 For example, the volatile solids and volume
    20 production rates for gestating sow, finishing pig and
    21 nursery pig are 2.13 pounds and .55 cubic feet, 4.8
    22 pounds and 1.1 cubic feet, 8.8 pounds and 1.7 cubic feet
    23 per 1000 pound of body weight respectively. I suggest
    24 that the rules list numbers specific to not only animal
    121
    1 type but phase of production volume, and volatile solids
    2 and total solid production rates to be used for lagoon
    3 design volumes. As has been required by the department
    4 under the emergency rules, we've been required to use the
    5 rates of feeder swine for that of gestating sows; for
    6 example, volatile solids and total solids, production
    7 rate of 4.8 and 6.0 instead of 2.13 and 2.5 pounds per
    8 day per 1000 pounds of body weight respectively. What
    9 this results in is approximately 38 percent increase in
    10 the required size of a typical lagoon. For a 3000 sow,
    11 approximately 1300 animal unit,
    farrow to wean facility;
    12 in other words, the pigs leave the facility at 10 pounds
    13 and are finished at another site, this cost on average an
    14 extra $20,000 for a site not requiring a liner.
    15 Furthermore, I believe that the extra volume is of little
    16 benefit since an odor control volume could not have
    17 been -- odor control volume could have been achieved
    18 without the extra 38 percent increase in size. See
    19 attached paper by Clyde
    Barth, "The Rational Design
    20 Standard for Anaerobic Livestock Lagoons", which bases
    21 much of its design on a goal of low odor intensity and
    22 emissions. It uses similar design criteria as ASAE
    23 EP403.2, 1993.
    24 Lagoon management is only casually addressed
    122
    1 in the proposed rules. The rules propose
    prefilling a
    2 lagoon to 60 percent of the design depth prior to use. A
    3 major problem is finding a source for this volume of
    4 water. The source and method of
    prefilling the lagoon
    5 should be required to be defined upon registration.
    6
    Prefilling a lagoon prior to use will eliminate 90
    7 percent of lagoon startup odor problems.
    8 The loading frequency is also important.
    9 Anaerobic bacteria are sensitive to loading, particularly
    10 the methane
    formers, which are the bacteria required to
    11 digest the main odorous compounds. The schedule for
    12 adding waste to the lagoon should be defined in order to
    13 be registered. Waste should be added to lagoons every
    14 three days or more frequently. Less frequent loading,
    15 slug loading, can cause serious odors.
    16 Regarding liner requirements and
    17 certification, I suggest that it is better to specify an
    18 acceptable discharge rate rather than hydraulic
    19 conductivity. Soils ability to be compacted adequately
    20 to achieve a specific hydraulic conductivity will vary
    21 widely throughout the state. Some soils will yield in
    22 excess of 10 to the minus seventh centimeters per second
    23 and some less, even if adequately compacted. Many
    24 contractors are not skilled enough to compact soils
    123
    1 uniformly enough to achieve the required density for a
    2 hydraulic conductivity of ten to the minus seventh
    3 centimeter per second. With this in mind, it should be
    4 acceptable to adjust the liner thickness based on the
    5 actual hydraulic conductivity which can be achieved on a
    6 particular site. This can be easily accomplished by
    7 establishing an acceptable discharge rate; for example,
    8 10 or 20 years. As an example, a liner with a hydraulic
    9 conductivity of five times 10 to the minus seventh
    10 centimeter per second, might require a 2.5 foot thick
    11 liner instead of two foot, to prevent discharge for 20
    12 years through that liner, depending on the liquid level
    13 in the lagoon. A liner achieving 10 to the minus eighth
    14 centimeter per second, might only require a 1.1 foot
    15 thick liner.
    16 I suggestion that a minimum one foot thick
    17 liner be required for all lagoons, unless
    Bentonite or
    18 other synthetic materials are used, even when site
    19 investigations do not find aquifer material within 50
    20 foot of the planned bottom of the lagoon. Exactly what
    21 supporting justification and data is required for liner
    22 certification, should be specifically defined in the
    23 rules. For example, engineers in Missouri can certify a
    24 liner based on classifying the liner material as CL, GC,
    124
    1 SC or CH according to the Unified Soil Classification
    2 System, and that the liner was adequately compacted; in
    3 other words, lab data not required.
    4 Another problem that I see with liner
    5 certification, without defining the required data, is the
    6 variance in cost. A typical
    geotechnical engineering
    7 firm will charge approximately $1,500 for the 60 to 70
    8 foot boring and site investigation report. If a liner is
    9 required, lab tests for determining the hydraulic
    10 conductivity and providing a technician on site during
    11 liner construction could easily run another 3000 to
    12 $6,000 for an 800 animal unit finisher lagoon depending
    13 on the amount of time required for the engineering
    14 technician to be on site with a nuclear density meter.
    15 If you add an additional $2,500 for the lagoon designer,
    16 who calculates the required volumes, balances that cut
    17 and fill, sizes pumps and transfer lines, and provides
    18 drawings and plans necessary for registration with the
    19 department, we've just spent seven to $10,000 on
    20 engineering fees for a project that only has $25,000 in
    21 expenses from the earth contractor. Pork producers in
    22 this state will not and cannot afford to spend 20 to 30
    23 percent of the cost of a project on engineering fees.
    24 They will either quit, a lot of the smaller producers, or
    125
    1 go to another state, a lot of the larger producers. And
    2 if Illinois loses its pork industry, I feel that everyone
    3 in the state loses.
    4 Emergency overflows are an additional tool
    5 which -- that should be used to prevent or minimize
    6 potential for large spills caused by
    overtopping dikes
    7 and
    berms when there are storm events in excess of the 25
    8 year, 24 hour storms. Requiring that the emergency
    9 overflow be above the two foot freeboard elevation,
    10 increases the risk of the
    berm or dike breaking due to
    11 the increased head pressure. Also, the volume for the
    12 storm event requirement should be spelled out in these
    13 rules and not left to the brief description of ASAE
    14 EP403.1.
    15 Additionally, the rainfall less evaporation
    16 varies greatly throughout the state. A specific schedule
    17 or map should be used to define this volume requirement.
    18 For example, evaporation should be less than annual lake
    19 evaporation since the surface area of the lagoon is
    20 different than the drainage or runoff area into the
    21 lagoon. This would require a minimum of six inches of
    22 net precipitation on the runoff area in some parts of the
    23 state and up to 21 inches in other parts of southern
    24 Illinois.
    126
    1 Finally, the department needs to have the
    2 authority to evaluate the use of alternative systems and
    3 technology in conjunction with lagoons. For example,
    4 solid separation, both gravity settling and mechanical,
    5 has long been used to reduce the volatile solids loading
    6 and sludge accumulation rates on lagoons. To date, the
    7 department has not approved the use of any of these
    8 systems. This is tragic because solids separation and
    9 other technologies, future and existing, have great
    10 potential to reduce odors and provide management tools to
    11 reduce the risk of pollution. For example, solids
    12 settling not only reduces the nitrogen content of lagoon
    13 effluent for recycle flush and gravity gutter systems,
    14 but it also greatly reduces the amount of phosphorus that
    15 will accumulate with the sludge in the bottom of the
    16 lagoon.
    17 As a citizen and native of this state, and a
    18 consultant to livestock industry, I ask you to consider
    19 all testimony carefully, and base your decisions on sound
    20 economic and scientific information. I believe that the
    21 state of Illinois has much to gain economically by
    22 fostering the environmentally safe growth of the
    23 livestock industry in our state.
    24 Thank you for listening to my testimony.
    127
    1 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you, Mr.
    Feldmann.
    2 Are there any questions? Board member
    Meyer.
    3
    4 MR. MEYER: How much would a fair trade cost?
    5
    6 MR. FELDMANN: The middle barrage trades
    7 itself?
    8
    9 MR. MEYER: Yes.
    10
    11 MR. FELDMANN: Four or $500.
    12
    13 MR. MEYER: And that's got water most of the
    14 time?
    15
    16 MR. FELDMANN: Water in the
    farrowing creek?
    17
    18 MR. MEYER: Yes.
    19
    20 MR. FELDMANN: They have a source of water
    21 for the animal.
    22
    23 MR. MEYER: And that would require plumbing?
    24
    128
    1 MR. FELDMANN: Yes.
    2
    3 MR. MEYER: And what would you estimate the
    4 cost of the plumbing would be on a per unit
    farrowing;
    5 $50, $100?
    6
    7 MR. FELDMANN: No, I would say probably --
    8 yeah, maybe 40 or $50.
    9
    10 MR. MEYER: And that also generally would
    11 have an electrical fixture and a heating lamp?
    12
    13 MR. FELDMANN: Yes.
    14
    15 MR. MEYER: And what would you value the
    16 electrical fixtures, the wiring and the heat lamp?
    17
    18 MR. FELDMANN: Probably $30.
    19
    20 MR. MEYER: Okay. So that comes up to $570
    21 on a per unit basis. And that times 1300, is 600,000. I
    22 would suggest to you that on the second page of your
    23 testimony, that in answer to maximum number $20,000 is
    24 consequential when considered the cost of a
    farrowing
    129
    1 unit, that doesn't include the cost of the structure.
    2
    3 MR. FELDMANN: I would agree that overall
    4 percentage of the total operation is a small percentage.
    5 I guess my point is that the values stated in the
    6 practice do not accurately reflect the manure production
    7 rates for that particular animal. For example, the
    8 nursery pig has much different manure production rates
    9 than a feeder pig. And the manure production rate for a
    10 gestating sow has an -- or even lactating sow is much
    11 different than it is for a feeder pig; by a factor of one
    12 and a half to two.
    13
    14 MR. MEYER: Would you be willing to give me a
    15 figure on a percentage -- on a percentage of a whole,
    16 would you believe would be a reasonable percentage
    17 towards pollution control and environmental control?
    18
    19 MR. FELDMANN: I'm not sure that I feel
    20 qualified to give you a number like that. The downfall
    21 that I see in -- or the problem that I see is not
    22 creating an equal playing field in terms of pollution
    23 control regulations among the states and among the
    24 counties, but particularly among states. And my main
    130
    1 fear is that if Illinois has significantly stricter rules
    2 or regulations, that we have to follow in this comparison
    3 with other states in the event that we're -- that the
    4 cost of facilities in this state is significantly
    5 different than facilities in other states, Illinois risks
    6 the chance of losing its industry or much of the pork
    7 industry that's here.
    8
    9 MR. GIRARD: I have a question on your
    10 testimony also. You testified that
    prefilling a lagoon
    11 prior to use will eliminate 90 percent of the lagoon
    12 startup odor problems. Is that your testimony based on
    13 any particular scientific studies, or management
    14 guidebooks, or is that based on your consulting
    15 experience?
    16
    17 MR. FELDMANN: That's mainly based on my
    18 consulting and experience, and what I remember from
    19 references cited in different literature, but mainly on
    20 my experience.
    21
    22 MR. GIRARD:
    Maninly on your experience. If
    23 you can recall any of the references in the next few days
    24 and have a chance to file a final comment with the board
    131
    1 before the expiration of the public comment period next
    2 Friday, that will be helpful.
    3 My second question is also related to that.
    4 You said less frequent loading, in other words, slug
    5 loading of a lagoon, can cause serious odors. Is that
    6 also based on your consulting experience, or can you
    7 point us to any particular paper?
    8
    9 MR. FELDMANN: I can point you to many
    10 particular papers. And in fact, I almost think it is
    11 actually referenced in some of the engineering practices,
    12 but it is addressed in Midwest Plan Service 18. I would
    13 think it would be fairly certain that it is also
    14 addressed in USDA-NRCS engineering handbook for animal
    15 facilities as well. Chapter nine, I think it is, which
    16 deals with actual design of animal evasive units.
    17
    18 MR. GIRARD: In your experience, what are the
    19 most helpful references for controlling odors?
    20
    21 MR. FELDMANN: I would say the ASAE
    22 engineering standards, both the EP403.2 and then the
    23 actual standard on that ASAE has, or the practice that
    24 they have on reducing odors, which is, I think,
    132
    1 referenced in the rules and -- I know it's referenced in
    2 title 35, control of
    manures. Midwest Plan Service 18,
    3 Livestock Waste Facilities Management Facilities Handbook
    4 addresses quite a number of those issues as well.
    5 The other thing in terms of actual lagoon
    6 design itself that I feel addresses odors very well is
    7 the Rational Design Standard for Anaerobic Livestock
    8 Lagoons by Clyde
    Barth. I didn't go into a whole lot of
    9 depth in my testimony about that, but it goes into a lot
    10 of the science behind why lagoons fail, or why they
    11 function properly with very minimal odor.
    12
    13 MR. GIRARD: I have one final question.
    14 Do any of your clients have structures which are enclosed
    15 and collect methane gas for use?
    16
    17 MR. FELDMANN: No.
    18
    19 MR. GIRARD: Thank you.
    20
    21 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Actually, Mr.
    Feldmann,
    22 you had referenced some table, an attached table by Clyde
    23
    Barth, and that was not attached. Actually, do you have
    24 those to admit as an exhibit?
    133
    1 MR. FELDMANN: Yes, I must have faxed in my
    2 testimony, and for some reason that didn't get in the
    3 fax. It was attached, I know for sure, with all the
    4 testimony that I mailed to the service list.
    5
    6 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Okay. Thank you.
    7
    8 MR. FLEMAL: I have an observation. First of
    9 all, we appreciate the attention you paid for these
    10 proposed rules, and appreciate the recommendations that
    11 you made.
    12 As has been the case when we had other
    13 recommendations of this sort, I would ask the proponents
    14 of the Department of Agriculture to look at those in
    15 their final comments to the extent that they feel they
    16 can instruct us -- to advise us on what their perspective
    17 on what Mr.
    Feldmann has said.
    18
    19 MR. MANNING: I'm suggesting that the
    20 department need to have the authority to evaluate the use
    21 of alternative systems with lagoon solid separation. You
    22 also say the department has not improved the use of these
    23 systems. I guess what I'm not following here is what
    24 approval, first, you believe there is for the Department
    134
    1 of Agriculture to -- I guess I wasn't aware that they had
    2 to seek approval for an alternative lagoon system.
    3 Certainly, if a producer wants to use an alternative
    4 lagoon system, they can do so and don't have to seek the
    5 department's approval. I'm not aware of where you're
    6 coming from; why the department wouldn't approve
    7 something?
    8
    9 MR. FELDMANN: Let me explain it a little bit
    10 in more detail. Specific to a couple of my clients in
    11 the past few months, these are systems that are used in
    12 conjunction with lagoons. In other words, main example
    13 would be a concrete settling tank that waste comes from
    14 the confinement facilities runs into that tank and
    15 settles out approximately 40 to 60 percent of the solids
    16 and volatile solids in that waste before it goes to the
    17 lagoon.
    18 So in other words, the lagoon is not -- is
    19 not actually treating that 40 to 60 percent of the
    20 volatile solids in that respect. What has been a typical
    21 practice in our industry, which is detailed in the
    22 Midwest Plan Service 18, is detailed for use of settling
    23 tanks in a paper written by Ted Funk, a cooperative
    24 education standard, that lagoon size, the treatment size
    135
    1 and sludge accumulation in this lagoon can be reduced
    2 proportionately with the amount of solids -- with the
    3 solids separation device; in this case, a settling tank.
    4 And to date, the department has told me they
    5 don't feel they have the authority to say that the
    6 loading rate on the lagoon has been reduced, and thus you
    7 can reduce the size of the lagoon proportionately in
    8 those volumes.
    9
    10 MS. MANNING: I think I understand the issue
    11 now.
    12
    13 MR. FELDMANN: Sorry.
    14
    15 MS. MANNING: That's okay. I just wanted to
    16 understand the issue.
    17
    18 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Mr.
    Meyer.
    19
    20 MR. MEYER: I wonder if you care to comment
    21 on methane recovery and
    bio-gas recovering?
    22
    23 MR. FELDMANN: I can say a few things. I
    24 think there needs to be much more work done with methane
    136
    1 recovery and
    bio-gas recovery, in terms of finding a way
    2 to make it economically feasible. I do see that there's
    3 probably a certain percentage of producers, particularly
    4 large facilities, that produce enough methane and
    bio-gas
    5 in an area that can be captured to start to make it
    6 economically feasible. In fact, there's a program, I
    7 don't know if it's come up in testimony, called the AG
    8 Start program, which is, I believe, is in conjunction
    9 with the EPA along those lines.
    10
    11 MR. MEYER: Do you know of any methane
    12 recovery plans?
    13
    14 MR. FELDMANN: Not here in the state of
    15 Illinois.
    16
    17 MR. MEYER: Other locations?
    18
    19 MR. FELDMANN: There's -- I know of one
    20 successful operation that I've heard of in a magazine in
    21 Pennsylvania, and there are a few others around the
    22 country as well.
    23
    24 MR. MEYER: Do you think you could provide us
    137
    1 with a list of facilities? If you can, we'd appreciate
    2 it.
    3
    4 MR. FELDMANN: Sure. There's a particular
    5 article I remember in one of the magazines that listed a
    6 couple of facilities that used methane production that I
    7 could look up.
    8
    9 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Yes. There's a question
    10 in the back. Could you come forward?
    11
    12 MS. BARNES: My name is Anna
    Barnes, and I
    13 just wanted to ask you, relative to the senior board
    14 members line of questioning, how -- what is the typical
    15 life span of that
    farrowing ingrate with the water and
    16 the electricity?
    17
    18 MR. FELDMANN: The
    farrowing crate, probably
    19 10 to 15 years. So essentially, we're talking about 1.4
    20 million dollars worth of
    farrowing crates over 20 years.
    21 And we're talking about a $20,000 liner or a $20,000
    22 engineering cost over the same period.
    23
    24 MS. BARNES: And isn't it a fact that one of
    138
    1 the persons who has done the most work with methane
    2 recovery, he never intended these systems to be used in a
    3 large scale, and that they were mostly developed for
    4 power supplies or irregularities at best?
    5
    6 MR. FELDMANN: I'm not sure who you're
    7 referring to there.
    8
    9 MS. BARNES: Okay.
    10
    11 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you, Ms.
    Barnes.
    12
    13 MS. RACE: On the same line as the
    farrowing
    14 crates, what is the average
    lifespan of the structure
    15 itself when animal waste starts eating away at it?
    16
    17 MR. FELDMANN: That's highly depending on the
    18 quality of the structure and the materials used in the
    19 facility. Unfortunately, there are a lot of facilities
    20 being constructed today that may have 15 years. Older
    21 clients that have remodeling of those facilities that
    22 have lasted, that are in existence in good operation
    23 today after 25 or 30 years.
    24
    139
    1 MS. RACE: What would you look at to help
    2 assess whether these were constructed using high quality
    3 or low quality materials?
    4
    5 MR. FELDMANN: The actual type of materials
    6 and how they were installed. For example, the use of
    7 treated lumber, the use of high strength quality -- good
    8 quality concrete, the use of some good plastics. I'd use
    9 polyethylene instead of steels, metals, that sort of
    10 thing.
    11
    12 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Any further questions?
    13
    14 MR. HARRINGTON: In your testimony, you
    15 represented that all lagoons have a one inch liner, is
    16 that correct?
    17
    18 MR. FELDMANN: One foot liner.
    19
    20 MR. HARRINGTON: One foot liner. And how
    21 much would this add to the cost of the lagoon?
    22
    23 MR. FELDMANN: Well, let's take the typical
    24 example of the 800 handling facility. For example,
    140
    1 21,000 head finisher buildings, I would estimate that
    2 cost be only $1,000 out of $25,000.
    3
    4 MR. HARRINGTON: What is this liner made off?
    5
    6 MR. FELDMANN:
    Recompacted clay. This is a
    7 liner that is left to be built by the contract, according
    8 to the specifications put forth by an engineer but not a
    9 liner that is necessarily extensively sampled and tested
    10 and sent back to a lab for engineering analysis, but a
    11 liner that would be used in basic field technology, such
    12 as monitoring moisture content of the soil as it's
    13
    recompacted and maybe a few limited density measurements
    14 as well.
    15
    16 MR. HARRINGTON: Does this assume the native
    17 availability of native soil suitable for the liner?
    18
    19 MR. FELDMANN: Yes, the $1,000 figure,
    20 $1,500 figure, I would suggest does assume that
    21 availability.
    22
    23 MR. HARRINGTON: Would this be an engineered
    24 design?
    141
    1 MR. FELDMANN: Yes.
    2
    3 MR. HARRINGTON: Would a --
    4
    5 MR. FELDMANN: Not a certified design, but a
    6 design using some common specifications.
    7
    8 MR. HARRINGTON: Not a design that would be
    9 suitable for certification?
    10
    11 MR. FELDMANN: It could be. I guess I was
    12 looking at a liner that cost $1,000 - $1,500, and maybe
    13 it's only in my mind and seems pointless to spend three
    14 or four thousand dollars in the engineering certification
    15 cost for a liner. I just added it in as an extra
    16 precaution to facilities.
    17
    18 MR. HARRINGTON: Are you a registered
    19 engineer in Illinois?
    20
    21 MR. FELDMANN: No, I'm an engineer intern at
    22 this point.
    23
    24 MR. HARRINGTON: Thank you. I have no
    142
    1 further questions.
    2
    3 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you, Mr.
    4
    Harrington.
    5 I'd like to mark Mr.
    Feldmann's pre-filed
    6 testimony as Exhibit Number 68.
    7 Are there any further questions of Mr.
    8
    Feldmann?
    9 We'll go ahead and go forward with Mr. Gray's
    10 testimony, and then we'll break for lunch. Okay, Mr.
    11 Gray.
    12
    13 MR. GRAY: First of all, I'd like to thank
    14 you very much for allowing me the opportunity to come
    15 here and speak for a few minutes, I appreciate that. My
    16 presentation will be one of information for you, maybe
    17 more so than one of technicalities that we've heard so
    18 much of this morning.
    19 Anyway, my name is Bill Gray, and my family
    20 and I are lifelong residence of the Hamilton in
    Hancock
    21 County, western Illinois. Graduated from the University
    22 of Illinois with a degree in Animal Science, and my
    23 family and I have been involved in farming and pork
    24 production for 44 years. I'm also one of seven pork
    143
    1 producers who have come together to form Little Timber, a
    2 name, to my understanding, you might have heard mentioned
    3 before in one of the other hearings, which is a
    4 cooperative or networking arrangement to
    farrow and
    5 produce weaned pigs to be finished on our own individual
    6 farms. We see this as a opportunity to sustain ourselves
    7 and our family farms in the future by pooling our efforts
    8 and resources into an adequately sized
    farrowing unit
    9 which will be efficient and reproductive, and meet our
    10 needs in the foreseeable future and in the economic
    11 environment that exists today.
    12 In addition, this avenue allows us to
    13 surround ourselves with management and technological
    14 expertise that we could not attain or afford on an
    15 individual basis. We see ourselves coming full circle,
    16 if you will, from dependence on each other from 50 years
    17 ago to total independence, back to our need to group back
    18 to attain our goals and meet the needs of our family
    19 today.
    20 I think it is important to know that we are
    21 local. We are local. Our farms will continue to vie
    22 from and support the local businesses for the viability
    23 of like
    Hancock County, Illinois.
    24 What happened to us and what is happening to
    144
    1 us, we have kept a log of events effecting Little Timber
    2 from the time we acquired the site. This log is quite
    3 extensive and provides us with an accurate record of what
    4 has happened. I won't go through all of this, but I have
    5 some dates that I want to mention to you.
    6 First date is August 15th, when a real estate
    7 disclosure statement was signed for negotiate of land
    8 purchase.
    9 September 18th, signing of manure agreements,
    10 and also signing the purchase agreement with owners,
    11 making a substantial down payment and receiving immediate
    12 possession of the property at that time.
    13 On September the 25th, we received a
    14 commitment of title insurance, and a letter scheduling
    15 September 28th at noon for our closing.
    16 On September 27th, our engineer, Dr. Mack
    17
    Schafly, whom I know you've heard from before, did a
    GPS
    18 matching of all the homes surrounding the area at 7
    19 o'clock in the morning. Meetings were held through the
    20 day to prepare the site. Late that afternoon, an
    21 unoccupied old trailer was pulled onto a small parcel of
    22 land adjacent to our site. The trailer was left there on
    23 wheels, back away from the road, unoccupied,
    unblocked
    24 until November the 11th, when it was moved closer to the
    145
    1 road and straw was stacked around it. This was deemed an
    2
    intertiff by us as a malicious attempt to stop Little
    3 Timber from developing this sow unit on this site.
    4 The thing that motivated me, Bill Gray, to
    5 come before you for a brief period of time today, is that
    6 I believe that the permanent rules need and should
    7 prevent this situation from occurring at any future
    8 circumstance. If we of Little Timber had done this
    9 project in an
    unresponsible and unprepared manner, I
    10 would say there might have been complaints, but this was
    11 not the case. We had a perfect site, setbacks were
    12 excellent, we surrounded ourselves with competent
    13 resources and management people, and have done everything
    14 in our power to meet or exceed the rules put forth in the
    15 Livestock Management Facilities Act and in the emergency
    16 rules also.
    17 I would urge you to move forward and adopt
    18 the rules you have proposed. If they need to be amended,
    19 added to or taken from, so be it. At least we'll have
    20 absolute with which to work, and reasonable requirements
    21 with which we're able to deal.
    22 33 years ago this Fall, my father and I
    23 constructed the first
    slaughted floor confinement floor
    24 building in
    Hancock County. It seemed kind of far out
    146
    1 and definitely out of ordinary at that period of time,
    2 but it was the way of the future. We were open to the
    3 change then, just as we are open to the change now.
    4 In closing, I would say that the only thing
    5 made about our group is our commitment to our families,
    6 our communities, our farms and the pork industry that has
    7 been so good to so many of us for so many year. Thank
    8 you very much for your time.
    9
    10 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you. Is there any
    11 questions for Mr. Gray? Yes, ma'am, will you come
    12 forward?
    13
    14 MS. BARNES: I don't know if he still is
    15 here, but it would seem that some of the current
    16 agricultural zoning could, if it was applied for early,
    17 could have protected you from this.
    18
    19 MR. GRAY: We have no zoning in
    Hancock
    20 County.
    21
    22 MS. BARNES: No, but there's a state program
    23 for agricultural areas.
    24
    147
    1 MR. GRAY: Yeah, but to my knowledge, that --
    2 I'm familiar with that, what you're talking about, but to
    3 my knowledge that is not amicable in our area, has never
    4 been accepted or put forth by our county government.
    5
    6 MS. BARNES: Thank you.
    7
    8 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Any further questions?
    9
    10 MR. LEONARD: My name is Jack Leonard. Do
    11 you or your family, or any of the stockholders, live on
    12 property of this farm?
    13
    14 MR. GRAY: No, we do not.
    15
    16 MR. LEONARD: Is it -- how do you feel about
    17 the Department of Natural Resources recommendation that
    18 setbacks should be to the borderline of the park, is that
    19 a fair application?
    20
    21 MR. GRAY: I think that's a fair application.
    22 And as I said before in this, you know, we have no
    23 setback problems prior to this situation that I explained
    24 to you.
    148
    1 MR. LEONARD: But setback, according to
    2 definition is to use the neighbors property, is that in
    3 your mind fair, if you were on the other side of that
    4 table?
    5
    6 MR. GRAY: Setback is --
    7
    8 MR. LEONARD: Is the location of the
    9 residence on the property using the neighbor's property
    10 as part of that setback? You don't own the land for the
    11 setback, correct?
    12
    13 MR. GRAY: Yes, that's correct, we don't own
    14 the land for the setback. That's right.
    15
    16 MR. LEONARD: So you feel that your
    17 production -- you should have the right to put up a
    18 facility that deprives a property owner of full use of
    19 his land?
    20
    21 MR. GRAY: Well in this particular case that
    22 we were talking about, we would not have been depriving
    23 the property owner of anything, because there was no
    24 problem prior to this trailer coming into existence. It
    149
    1 wasn't even there.
    2
    3 MR. LEONARD: But you feel that if you built
    4 the facility, then if he, at some future time, that he
    5 wished to use the land that he owns within that area of
    6 the setback, he should be deprived of the use of that
    7 land for residential purposes?
    8
    9 MR. GRAY: In an agricultural area, if we
    10 were established and there first, yes, I feel that that
    11 definitely would have to be taken into consideration at
    12 that time, because I feel my protection is just as
    13 important as his would be in that circumstance, sir.
    14
    15 MR. LEONARD: Your protection relates to your
    16 land. His protection --
    17
    18 MR. GRAY: Relates to his land.
    19
    20 MR. LEONARD: Except it doesn't, because you
    21 want to use part of it.
    22
    23 MR. GRAY: I'm using it for setback, and it's
    24 a fairly intangible thing. Setback is just being far
    150
    1 away from something. I'm not gaining anything from his
    2 land.
    3
    4 MR. LEONARD: Except he's getting a
    5 restriction on the use of his property. Thank you.
    6
    7 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Any other questions?
    8
    9 MR. EMMETT: Mr. Gray, it's my
    10 understanding -- my name is Bill Emmett. Mr. Gray, it's
    11 my understanding that you received two letters from the
    12 EPA referencing -- I'm not sure that it was referencing
    13 that or other siting problems, could you elaborate on
    14 that?
    15
    16 MR. GRAY: We have referenced that, but in
    17 what respect do you want me to respond to those? We've
    18 not been cited.
    19
    20 MR. EMMETT: No. Did they not request -- I
    21 may be mistaken, if so, I would like to know. Did they
    22 not ask you not to build because -- I was under the
    23 impression it was a siting problem, but I wasn't sure
    24 what the siting problem was.
    151
    1 MR. GRAY: This was the siting problem. And
    2 at some point in time, I guess somebody is going to have
    3 to decide who was there first. The letter that you might
    4 be referring to, was a letter that we were told was one
    5 that was sent out as a standard procedure as a result of
    6 any complaint or inquiry, so far as the circumstances of
    7 ours was existing, and that was the first. There wasn't
    8 anything about the particular trailer or anything like
    9 that.
    10
    11 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you, Mr. Gray.
    12 Right now, I would like -- oh, sorry, board
    13 member
    Meyer.
    14
    15 MR. MEYER: Am I correct in stating that you
    16 included in your setback area, property you didn't own?
    17
    18 MR. GRAY: Could you help me with the
    19 question again, please.
    20
    21 MR. MEYER: In the setback area, you included
    22 property that you did not own established in the setback?
    23
    24 MR. GRAY: In that instance, there's property
    152
    1 that we do not own. In that setback instance, that's
    2 correct. Yeah.
    3
    4 MR. MEYER: I have no further questions.
    5
    6 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you. What we're
    7 going to do is take a break. Off the record.
    8
    9 (At this time an off-the-record
    10 discussion was had.)
    11 (At this time a break was taken.)
    12
    13 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: We're now going to
    14 continue with the testimony of the individuals who are
    15 currently up at the table, and those will be in the
    16 following order: We'll be taking Jack Leonard, Judy
    17 Race, Bill Emmett, David Thompson and Janet Fritz. And
    18 if you could swear in Mr. Leonard.
    19
    20 (Witness sworn.)
    21
    22 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Mr. Leonard, you may
    23 begin.
    24
    153
    1 MR. LEONARD: My name is Jack Leonard, and I
    2 am not employed by any government agency. I do not hold
    3 any elected public office. Other than being one of the
    4 many citizens who may be adversely effected by a confined
    5 animal feeding operation which is improperly designed,
    6 managed or regulated, neither I or any member of my
    7 immediate or extended family will be economically
    8 effected by the regulations resulting from the Livestock
    9 Management Facilities Act. My major qualification for
    10 submitting testimony is the knowledge gained from
    Mort
    11 the handyman.
    12
    Mort was my uncle's handyman and was always
    13 the one my uncle would hire for a building project, until
    14 he decided to hire one of those state of the art builders
    15 to build a barn.
    16 Almost immediately, Leo, my uncle, saw there
    17 were problems. Construction seemed awfully slow. And
    18 although he knew nothing about carpentry, it seemed the
    19 end of the boards were mangled and full of bent nails.
    20 He told the builder the problem, and the builder called
    21 in all kinds of experts to solve it.
    22 The hammer expert testified on all aspects of
    23 the hammer. An expert on fasteners gave a 10 page
    24 dissertation on the quality of the nails. Lumber experts
    154
    1 wrote about everything from the direction of the grain,
    2 to its moisture content. An associate of the builder
    3 even suggested that they use sledge hammers, as he had a
    4 survey that the railroad bent very few nails.
    5 My uncle so confused, he told the builder to
    6 stop working and for
    Mort to cleanup the mess while he
    7 took a vacation to read all these reports.
    8 When he came back and saw
    Mort putting a
    9 final coat of paint on a new barn, he asked
    Mort if the
    10 experts were wrong, and if they were not, how did he get
    11 the barn finished.
    12
    Mort said well, the experts weren't wrong and
    13 it was easy for me, as I always put the pointed part of
    14 the nail in towards the wood.
    15 In like manner, much of the submitted
    16 testimony ignores the problem. The value of all
    17 testimony, including this meager effort, has to be
    18 weighed considering the bias of the source, its technical
    19 content, but most of all, its relevance to the creation
    20 of rules that will control the environmental problems
    21 posed by large confined animal feeding operations within
    22 the parameters of the Livestock Facilities Management
    23 Act.
    24 This admonition is not a reflection on
    155
    1 Pollution Control Board, but rather on the tendency of
    2 elected public officials to respond to agricultural power
    3 groups and their testimony. I urge these officials to
    4 support the final rules as recommended by the Pollution
    5 Control Board.
    6 On behalf of the many common citizens who
    7 often feel their voices are not heard, I'd like to
    8 express my appreciation for this opportunity to comment
    9 on this rule making, and to applaud the Pollution Control
    10 Board for scheduling these hearings at multiple locations
    11 throughout the state.
    12 There are obvious limitations in the
    13 Livestock Management Facilities Act, and there seems
    14 little purpose in urging regulations that do not have
    15 some relation to the provisions of the act. However,
    16 every effort must be made to flush out those regulations
    17 that will improve the environmental protection or
    18 enforcement of that protection.
    19 An integral part of any regulation are those
    20 provisions that provide revenue to support the
    21 administration of the rules. Certain fees; for example,
    22 lagoon permit and certified livestock management
    23 certificates, are established, but the act necessitates
    24 inspections and training. The cost of this activity
    156
    1 should be charged to those receiving the services and not
    2 supported by general Department of Agriculture funding.
    3 In addition, the act expressions a particular
    4 concern that financial responsibility and closure be
    5 considered in issuing permits. The very fact that an
    6 applicant has chosen a type of business organization that
    7 limits liability, corporation limits his liability,
    8 should automatically require that the applicant pay a fee
    9 per animal, sufficient to properly close the lagoon and
    10 confinement buildings.
    11 The act specifically mentions the need to
    12 control the odor problems resulting from manure
    13 application. The board will go a long way in complying
    14 with this stipulation by forbidding the open air power
    15 spraying of sewage and requiring one of the methods of
    16 injection. Such provision would also reduce the amount
    17 of gas liberated by spraying and reduce surface runoff of
    18 sewage into the waterways of the state of Illinois.
    19 The legislature has listed maximum fines for
    20 a number of violations. It is logical to assume that the
    21 purpose of the fine is to encourage cooperation. It is
    22 obvious that there will be situations where risking a
    23 fine is less expensive than correcting a problem,
    24 particularly where the history of enforcement in 15
    157
    1 states, including Illinois, is the result of a
    2 complaint. Each day a violation is allowed to continue
    3 should be considered a separate offense.
    4 The act recognizes the importance of proper
    5 nutrient loading, and provides that the agronomic
    6 nitrogen rate be used in determining the amount of field
    7 application. However, its specific mention of phosphorus
    8 establishes the need to avoid overloading of other
    9 elements. As such, it would be in keeping with the act,
    10 to require yearly soil testing and forbidding the
    11 application of any waste when soil analysis shows a
    12 sufficient presence of phosphorus, or potassium, or a
    13 buildup of zinc or copper.
    14 Since a lagoon is only part of a waste
    15 system, and the system relies on the presence of
    16 sufficient land for waste distribution, the regulations
    17 should reflect this reality and should require that the
    18 applicant for a lagoon permit show that he either owns
    19 sufficient land for disposal or has a contract for the
    20 spreading of waste on land owned by others. In either
    21 case, the deed for the land must reflect this
    22 obligation.
    23 It is further suggested that the board
    24 request a copy of, "A Review of State Environmental
    158
    1 Regulatory Enforcement Actions" produced by the National
    2 Pork Producers Council in cooperation with the National
    3 Pork Board, which was created in 1996.
    4 You'll find that its recommendation on land
    5 applications is in keeping with much of my testimony, and
    6 that it recognizes the presence of diseases causing
    7 organisms in hog waste that apparently has little
    8 importance to Clinton
    Mudgett of the Illinois Department
    9 of Health, who also seems unaware of the Vector Control
    10 Act that would be applicable to the proliferation of
    11 files at these facilities.
    12 Thank you for this opportunity to present
    13 this testimony.
    14
    15 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you. Is there any
    16 questions for Mr. Leonard in the audience? Any questions
    17 from anyone at the board?
    18
    19 MS. MANNING: What was this document to which
    20 you were referring?
    21
    22 MR. LEONARD: It's the National Pork
    23 Producers Council in cooperation with the National Pork
    24 Board, and it's called, "Review of State Environmental
    159
    1 Regulatory Enforcement Actions." It includes the actions
    2 for a two year period of time and 15 states, and does a
    3 review of what this group feels is important in
    4 regulations. And they are quite specific about the fact
    5 that sufficient land should be available for waste
    6 application, and the application should be applied.
    7 They're less ambiguous about it than their own law.
    8
    9 MS. MANNING: Thank you.
    10
    11 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you very much, Mr.
    12 Leonard.
    13 We'll now continue with Ms. Race.
    14
    15 MS. RACE: Thank you very much for this
    16 public comment period, and I also want to thank you for
    17 your accommodations.
    18 Members of the Pollution Control Board, my
    19 name is Judy Race, I have a Bachelor of Science Degree in
    20 nursing from Illinois
    Wesleyan University. Currently,
    21 I'm employed in several nursing capacities; I am a
    22 clinical nursing instructor, and continue to practice in
    23 cardiovascular and surgical intense care unit in a large
    24 medical center, serve on the volunteer rescue team in
    160
    1
    Williamsfield, Illinois.
    2 As a woman with a young family, who is going
    3 to be directly impacted by the plan of a construction of
    4 a large confinement hog operation near our home, I wish
    5 to submit my finding of health hazards caused by large
    6 animal confinement operations. I am submitting these
    7 findings as a response to testimony before the Pollution
    8 Control Board by the Illinois Department of Public
    9 Health, Mr. Clinton
    Mudgett. Mr. Mudgett states that the
    10 new rules provide adequate and reasonable health
    11 safeguards; I disagree. He also states that there's very
    12 little research with regard to adverse health effects as
    13 it relates to odors and none that really associates
    14 physical illness with exposure to odors.
    15 Initially, scientific research was difficult
    16 to find; however, new research is becoming available at
    17 an increasingly rapid pace. The research that I have
    18 found clearly demonstrates that large scale animal
    19 confinements do cause physical and psychological
    20 dysfunction. I urge the Pollution Control Board to
    21 request that the Department of Public Health conduct a
    22 more extensive review of the literature.
    23 I'm deeply concerned that within the appeals
    24 testimony of Dr. Julian Dire, Assistant Director of
    161
    1 Public Health as quoted as having found no correlation of
    2 proximity to hog confinement operations and transmission
    3 of any infectious agent. This may be due to the fact
    4 that the signs and symptoms caused by most of the
    5 diseases known to be transmittable seem to be a fluke.
    6 The general population is not likely to seek medical
    7 attention for flu like symptoms; therefore, I believe
    8 there will be a probability that confinement induced
    9 health will be undocumented and misdiagnosed.
    10 This act makes a distinction between farm and
    11 non-farm residences. Could the board please explain the
    12 differences of human anatomy and requirements of healthy
    13 living between the
    subclassifications of humans. From
    14 the definition of impermeable, not permitting significant
    15 passage to a manure lagoon design specification. The
    16 Livestock Management Facility Act gives preferential
    17 treatment to livestock producer.
    18 Earlier before this board, Mr.
    Englebart
    19 testified on behalf of the Illinois Farm Bureau, Illinois
    20 Pork Producers and the Illinois Beef Association, and in
    21 his testimony he reminds the board, technologically
    22 feasible and economically feasible. They do add costs,
    23 but I feel the burden of the cost should rest on the
    24 confinement producer. The state of Illinois and tax
    162
    1 payers are under no obligation to subsidize polluters so
    2 they can form a larger profit. Mr.
    Englebart, says to
    3 trust us. I would like to ask Mr.
    Englebart, when was
    4 the last time he gambled his family's health and quality
    5 of life to someone that said trust me.
    6 Jeff and Julie
    Henson, along with their six
    7 children continue to suffer from headaches, nausea and
    8 vomiting, fatigue, aching joints, backaches and more.
    9 All of which Julie
    Jenson proved were due to large
    10 hydrogen sulfide emissions from a neighboring hog
    11 confinement. I conclude, I would like to get that into
    12 the record. And speaking by phone with her last week,
    13 she confirmed their ongoing symptoms and added, these
    14 days it takes a much longer period of time away from the
    15 odors before her family members begin to recover.
    16 Previously, Julie
    Jenson testified before the state of
    17 Illinois, and I'm including copies of her testimony.
    18 Researchers study the unhealthy impact of
    19 hydrogen sulfide on pulmonary function and birth defects,
    20 including spontaneous abortion. He has found absorption
    21 into the fatty tissues and that explains why some people
    22 say they can smell odor on their breath long after they
    23 leave the farm. She further stated that people living
    24 near hog confinements experience more tension, more
    163
    1 depression, less vigor, more fatigue and more confusion
    2 than their counterparts who weren't exposed to hog
    3 confinement. American Lung Association says hog
    4 confinement workers experience one or more symptoms from
    5 respiratory illness. They also found that 58 experience
    6 chronic bronchitis; this is three times the rate for
    7 non-confinement farmers. The 1987 Illinois Revised
    8 Statutes, chapter 111 and a half, public health and
    9 safety, title two, air pollution section 1009.5
    10 legislative findings on toxic air contaminant regulation
    11 reads, the board has promulgated a list of toxic air
    12 contaminants. The list published under the subsections,
    13 lewd air contaminants, which may cause or significantly
    14 contribute to an increase in mortality or increase in
    15 serious or irreversible or incapacitating irreversible
    16 illness, or may pose a significant threat to human health
    17 or the environment.
    18 I am submitting several documents that speak
    19 to the health effects of hydrogen sulfide. Without
    20 question, this gas upon decomposing manure falls within
    21 the section of this law. I would urge the Illinois
    22 Pollution Control Board to set limits regarding safe
    23 levels of hydrogen sulfide, like in the state of
    24 Minnesota. I included studies for the state of Missouri
    164
    1 as per chapter 111 and a half, public health, 1987.
    2 Illinois revised statutes 1025b-3, Illinois Toxic
    3 Chemical Inventory states, EPA maintains the chemical
    4 toxic inventory on chemicals released in the environment
    5 and where they are reduced. IEPA publishes an annual
    6 toxic report to the county and public health departments.
    7 EPA reviews the report under section 31 of the Federal
    8 Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act of
    9 1986, which is 42 USCA section 111023.
    10 The EPA holds public hearings and submits to
    11 the Governor a list of toxic chemical facilities not
    12 covered in the list that may cause a threat to the
    13 public. I would urge Governor Edgar to petition USDAE to
    14 include the chemical hydrogen sulfide, many well
    15 documented diseases, harmful gases, heavy metal and
    16 irritating substances that are released in confinement.
    17 I am respectfully submitting my findings, including
    18 reviewed scientific research interviews and findings from
    19 other federal sources.
    20 And in conclusion, I thank the board for
    21 allowing me to present my testimony. I ask that the
    22 Pollution Control Board make themselves aware of the
    23 problems. Other states found that none of their
    24 solutions came cheaply. Thank you very much.
    165
    1 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you, Ms. Race.
    2
    3 MS. RACE: I would have included this impact,
    4 I would have admitted it, but you already have it. This
    5 has been quite a source for me.
    6
    7 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Okay. Let the record
    8 reflect that the document title, Measurement of
    9 Environmental Odors, Commercial Sign Operation has been
    10 marked as Exhibit Number 69 and entered into the record.
    11 Let the record reflect that document titled,
    12 The Effects of Environmental Odors Emanating From
    13 Commercial Swine On the Mood of the Residents, has been
    14 marked as Exhibit Number 70.
    15 The document which has as the first line for
    16 the record, my name is Julie
    Janson and I live in South
    17 Olympia, Minnesota, has been marked as Exhibit number 71.
    18 The document titled, Analysis of Hydrogen
    19 Sulfide Monitoring, May 1996, Minnesota Department of
    20 Health, July 16th, 1996, has been marked as Exhibit
    21 Number 72.
    22 The document from Minnesota Department of
    23 Public Health with the name Fred Adams at the top, August
    24 16th of 1996, has been docketed as Exhibit number 73.
    166
    1 The document entitled, Hydrogen Sulfide from
    2 the AGSDR General Information has been mashed as Exhibit
    3 Number 74.
    4 The document entitled, Swine Dust Causes
    5 Intense Airways Inflammation in Healthy Subjects, has
    6 been marked as Exhibit Number 75.
    7 And finally, the document entitled, Keeping
    8 Them Off the Farm, from the Agriculture Research
    9 Magazine, dated February 1996, has been marked as Exhibit
    10 Number 76.
    11 And all of those documents are hereby
    12 admitted into the record. Thank you, Ms. Race.
    13 Are there any questions for Ms. Race from
    14 anybody in the audience? Yes, could you come forward?
    15
    16 MS. MORCOPA: I don't have a question. I
    17 want to comment, I have oodles of material from North
    18 Carolina from my sister about hogs, and they also
    19 mentioned the nausea and everything that effects people's
    20 health. So I'm glad they --
    21
    22 MS. RACE: Can I ask you how often you
    23 experience symptoms?
    24
    167
    1 MS. MORCOPA: I don't know.
    2
    3 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: She's going to bring that
    4 up when she testifies later.
    5 Any other questions of Ms. Race? Yes, Mr.
    6
    Mudgett.
    7
    8 MR. MUDGETT: Clinton
    Mudgett, Illinois
    9 Department of Public Health. In your testimony, Ms.
    10 Race, you indicated there's research that shows physical
    11 health symptoms associated with these types of
    12 operations. Can you give us any citations for those
    13 physical symptom studies?
    14
    15 MS. RACE: Everything I used was five years
    16 or present. What is your most recent citations? What
    17 are you working with?
    18
    19 MR. MUDGETT: We've done a computer data base
    20 search of all data up to 1996, so I'm interested in what
    21 you may have that associates disease or physical symptoms
    22 and research study, or was that part of what you
    23 submitted?
    24
    168
    1 MS. RACE: That's what I submitted. In
    2 addition, on February 22nd, I'll be traveling to
    3 Minnesota, to go to a Clean Water Act Symposium and I
    4 hope to obtain the most current information. I didn't
    5 know if you plan to attend.
    6
    7 MR. MUDGETT: Also, you referenced Ms.
    8
    Jenson's studies in Minnesota?
    9
    10 MS. RACE: Yes.
    11
    12 MR. MUDGETT: With regard to hydrogen
    13 sulfide, do you know where she tested the hydrogen
    14 sulfide levels?
    15
    16 MS. RACE: Not only around her county but
    17 others. Not only did they find hydrogen sulfide from hog
    18 confinements but from --
    19
    20 MR. MUDGETT: Are you aware those tests --
    21 the ones I reviewed were all taken at the lagoon. Do you
    22 know if any of the hydrogen sulfide testing was done in
    23 an area where citizens could be exposed?
    24
    169
    1 MS. RACE: Excuse me?
    2
    3 MR. MUDGETT: Near as I can tell, all the
    4 tests that were done were all in the vicinity of the
    5 lagoon where you would expect high hydrogen sulfide
    6 levels. I'm asking, did Ms.
    Jenson do any testing at the
    7 perimeter of the property and that sort of thing?
    8
    9 MS. RACE: Public property. They didn't go
    10 onto the lagoon, according to what I read. They stayed
    11 on the public perimeter.
    12
    13 MR. MUDGETT: Okay. You have also indicated
    14 that considerable research has been done on the health
    15 effects of hydrogen sulfide on the workers and livestock
    16 confinement operations. Do you have any information that
    17 indicates any adverse health effects due to hydrogen
    18 sulfide in non-workers?
    19
    20 MS. RACE: I believe Ms.
    Jenson's.
    21
    22 MR. MUDGETT: Okay. Thank you.
    23
    24 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you, Mr.
    Mudgett.
    170
    1 Yes, come forward. For the record, this is
    2 Ms.
    Barnes.
    3 MS. BARNES: There are examples of people who
    4 have been exposed to hydrogen sulfide right here down --
    5
    6 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: You're really testifying.
    7 If you're not asking her a question --
    8
    9 MS. BARNES: If the people want to find that
    10 out, they can do interviews of the employees and their
    11 symptoms as well.
    12
    13 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you. You might
    14 want to talk to Mr.
    Mudgett afterwards.
    15
    16 MS. RACE: I contacted the community nurse
    17 who was doing research in the
    Jenson area. One of the
    18 problems she has is such a rural community, there's not
    19 enough numbers to extrapolate usable data for one in a
    20 year because there's just not enough information on the
    21 data, so that's one problems she's running into.
    22
    23 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Any other questions?
    24 Yes, Mr.
    Mudgett.
    171
    1 MR. MUDGETT: I would lake to clarify one
    2 point. If you review my written testimony, the Public
    3 Health does not dispute the existence of physical
    4 symptoms, in fact we acknowledge that some of the
    5 information that is available clearly shows that maybe
    6 some unscientific surveys have been completed and shows
    7 lots of citizens complain of physical symptoms. Many of
    8 these are also substantiated with physician states. And
    9 again, I indicated that in my written testimony. Those
    10 again, we take seriously and don't dispute the fact that
    11 exposure to odors around these types of facilities can
    12 certainly evoke physical symptoms. But it's another step
    13 to move to the point of finding that scientific studies
    14 have been able to identify that odors have caused either
    15 disease or consistent physical symptoms.
    16
    17 MS. RACE: Are you aware that the people most
    18 at risk are the elderly, the very young and those with
    19 existing pulmonary problems, such as asthma? One of the
    20 reports of North Carolina used a -- observed a child, a 4
    21 year old. Hog confinement started and admissions in the
    22 ER increased significantly following the opening of this
    23 hog confinement. I would say that that would be a
    24 concern that I would ask the Public Health Department, to
    172
    1 protect all those residents who may not be aware of it
    2 something they're breathing could be causing fatigue and,
    3 you know, decreased pulmonary blood.
    4
    5 MR. MUDGETT: Certainly most are effected by
    6 any environmental input and we're very much aware of
    7 that.
    8
    9 MS. RACE: And you feel what portion of this
    10 bill is providing adequate -- that these populations
    11 won't be adequately effected?
    12
    13 MR. MUDGETT: I also indicated in my written
    14 testimony and in Jacksonville, there are setback
    15 requirements. There's language -- I think it is section
    16 25 of the act that requires a limitation of odor control
    17 measures as already required in the EPA regulations. As
    18 the Department of Agriculture has testified, that's
    19 beginning to be a concern in their training for livestock
    20 manager certification. So whether all these are going to
    21 ultimately be adequate or not, I think we're going to
    22 have to give the law and regulations a chance to be used
    23 and to find out.
    24 But the truth is, the Livestock Management
    173
    1 Facilities Act is very specific on many of these
    2 requirements that pertain to odor control, and the
    3 authority of the advisory rules of the advisory committee
    4 to modify most of that is very limited.
    5 But again, I want to make it clear, the
    6 Department of Public Health is not taking the position
    7 that adverse odors cannot give symptoms, that can
    8 certainly be problematic.
    9
    10 MS. RACE: One more point/question: Do you
    11 think it valuable to invest in something like a Jerome
    12 Hydrogen Sulfide Detector, and if you start seeing some
    13 adverse health --
    14
    15 MR. MUDGETT: We have several meters already.
    16
    17 MS. RACE: Are they available? Who gets to
    18 use those?
    19
    20 MR. MUDGETT: It's not normally the
    21 responsibility of the Department of Public Health to deal
    22 with outdoor air pollution issues, and I don't know if
    23 the EPA might want to add some comment to this, but the
    24 regulation of air pollutants is the responsibility of the
    174
    1 IEPA. We cooperate with the IEPA in different areas.
    2 This one Department of Public Health formally uses its
    3 equipment on indoor air pollution problems. I would
    4 suspect that IEPA has Jerome Meters that can be utilized
    5 for that; if not, we certainly would participate in any
    6 sort of studies that we have the resources to carry out.
    7
    8 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you, Mr.
    Mudgett.
    9 Any questions of the board?
    10 Okay. Thank you very much, both of you.
    11 Mr. Emmett, would you like to give your
    12 testimony?
    13
    14 MR. EMMETT: I'm a farmer from
    McLean County.
    15 I don't have a prepared testimony, I do better winging
    16 it. It is time that we talk about what is happening at
    17 the grassroots level. I'm an ICRP member, stewardship
    18 alliance. I'm also a member of the
    McLean County Board
    19 and from
    McLean County. I'm not representing the board.
    20 However, I've been in for 62 years and became an involved
    21 in
    McLean County, and I've talked about a lot of people
    22 over the last two years in North Carolina, South
    23 Carolina, Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Illinois. I was
    24 investigator for many years on the Wilmington Police
    175
    1 Department and Chief of Detectives for 10 years and
    2 investigating is what I did. And I decided two years ago
    3 when I became involved in this, that I had to know both
    4 sides of the issue and I wanted to know everything I
    5 could about the issue. And so on our own, my wife and I
    6 have made trips all over the country. We've talked to
    7 people from as far away as Canada on the same issue.
    8 People have worked in these facilities and worked around
    9 these facilities. We've found it's a very common thread
    10 through that there's major problems with regulation. If
    11 we're going to allow factory farms or factory settings
    12 such as this, we need industrial strength regulation, and
    13 I appreciate what is being done by the Pollution Control
    14 Board. I think you would have to work in connection with
    15 the law, and I helped work on that. I was on the
    16 subcommittee. The initial report came out on that
    17 subcommittee, and I think in prior testimony, Bruce St.
    18 John addressed a little bit on how the makeup of that
    19 subcommittee was, so I don't feel a need to get into
    20 that.
    21 I was part of the minority. I don't believe
    22 the bill went far enough in many areas. And quite
    23 frankly, setbacks were still using a quarter mile
    24 setback. It was set back in the late 70s, early 80s.
    176
    1 And I talked to people from the EPA. That quarter mile
    2 setback was put together for the smaller units that were
    3 prevalent at that time. As I was told, we didn't
    4 conceive what was happening today, the size units we're
    5 having today. I don't know that you can really do
    6 anything about the setbacks. I think they're pretty well
    7 set. However, I think you can do something about the way
    8 setbacks are measured, and I think it was brought out
    9 here a couple times today that why should my property be
    10 the buffer for these large facilities. Why should my
    11 property rights be impinged upon so somebody could put a
    12 large facility next door. Measure from my property line.
    13 The DNA is saying the same thing about our state parks.
    14 They're saying our state parks should not be, and I
    15 absolutely support them wholeheartedly, our parks should
    16 not be the buffer. If we at
    Dawson Lake, if we measure a
    17 half mile from populated area, and there's a question as
    18 to where we measure from, and for awhile it looked like
    19 we were going to measure from the center of the park.
    20 Well, if that's the case, I could put a facility right on
    21 the -- smack on the border around that park, and that's
    22 going to impinge on the use of that park by people. And
    23 we need to protect our natural resources, but we also
    24 need to protect property rights of people that are living
    177
    1 out there.
    2 I'm a farmer, I have a farm, why should the
    3 half mile or the quarter mile -- in our case, be a
    4 quarter mile, why should that quarter mile be measured
    5 from my home. If we measure from my home, they can build
    6 right next door to me, right up on my property line and
    7 there's nothing I could do about it. That quarter mile
    8 should be measured from my property line to make it an
    9 actual buffer, to make it an actual setback, because it
    10 isn't a setback unless it's measured from my property
    11 line. So I would like to see if the Pollution Control
    12 Board can address that.
    13 Site development, we have a problem. And
    14 with site development, I think Pollution Control Board
    15 might be able to do some work on our siting. We have a
    16 problem with siting. We have --
    Cass County, we have a
    17 facility being built on sandy soil; bad place to build
    18 it. It's still being built there. We struck ground
    19 water at a very low level at five or 10 feet. It
    20 shouldn't be built there, but we're building there any
    21 way. Kankakee County, same problem. Green County built
    22 on car soil. I don't know if any of you have visited
    23 that but I have, and a lot of our folks have been. It's
    24 built on car soil. We should not be building this type
    178
    1 of facility on car soil. Under our citing in the Manure
    2 or Livestock Facilities Management Act, we can't prevent
    3 them from being there.
    4 A question on Little Timber: I asked the
    5 question about what was happening down there. It's my
    6 understanding that the EPA has sent one or two letters; I
    7 thought it was two and I may be wrong, but on some siting
    8 problems down there. But my understanding is Little
    9 Timber, they continue to build at Little Timber and
    10 ignore the letter they did get from the EPA. Now I may
    11 not have all those facts straight on Little Timber, but I
    12 think it needs to be looked at. I think it points out
    13 that there are some definite siting problems that we have
    14 with this act, and I would hope that the Pollution
    15 Control Board can take a look and possibly tidy up some
    16 of the definitions.
    17 Especially, I asked over two years ago for a
    18 definition of a public place; now that doesn't seem like
    19 a real hard question. I had meetings with the EPA. I
    20 had meetings with the Illinois Environmental Protection
    21 Agency, and I was told over two years ago that I would
    22 get a decision on that, and we just -- now I've just been
    23 told within the last couple of weeks, people from DNR
    24 have told me a decision finally came out on that
    179
    1 definition. And I don't really see that that was such a
    2 difficult question to ask, but it points out the problem
    3 that if we don't spell the definitions out absolutely and
    4 particularly in this regulation, we're going to have some
    5 problems again. And so I would like to see on your
    6 setbacks and so forth, spell them out so people can
    7 understand, so they are in plain language.
    8 The young lady that testified before me,
    9 touched on the other area that I was going to touch on,
    10 the Julie
    Jenson study, and that's already been
    11 introduced. I do have a newspaper article out of the
    12 Peoria Journal Star, February the 4th, '94 study done by
    13 Susan
    Shifleman, professor of medical physiology at Duke
    14 University, and I think some of her work has been already
    15 introduced. And apparently, she came up with a study
    16 that links smell and emotion, and this may help unravel
    17 why unpleasant odors, such as people living downwind from
    18 smelly, dusty or agricultural sites. And I think
    19
    Shifleman has been doing a lot of work on smell and --
    20 between smell and emotion.
    21 The other thing that I wanted to introduce,
    22 some photographs. And these photographs are photographs
    23 of an area in our county, it's on 136 between
    Heyworth
    24 and
    McLean. And a lot of farmer friends of mine in that
    180
    1 area are having some serious problems there between 70
    2 and 90,000 hogs in three to four facilities in that area.
    3 And some of these pictures depict what the reality is.
    4 We can have these people standing up here telling about
    5 how wonderful it is to educate people on how to do these
    6 things and how wonderful we're doing it, but in fact, it
    7 is not being done. This is the reason we need
    8 regulation. This may or shall, that we have in the law,
    9 needs to read, we'll do it; if not, we're going to come
    10 out with a big hammer and you will do it in the future.
    11 These are some good examples of why, showing
    12 that they're not knifing it, dumping it right on the
    13 ground, standing in puddles; there's a bunch of pictures
    14 on that. Showing dead things laying in a building right
    15 on the roadway. Showing big manure spreaders, big honey
    16 dipper wagons going down the road, no lights or anything.
    17 This is a common everyday thing that these people are
    18 living in and living through. This is daily. And these
    19 facilities came in after these folks. Some of these
    20 folks have been on the farm, their families have been on
    21 the farm 100 years.
    22 And when I talk to city folks who move to the
    23 country, because originally we were deemed as a bunch of
    24 city folk moving to the country, can't stand the smell or
    181
    1 we've been depicted in these hearings as a shrill voice.
    2 We're not shrill voices, we're voices crying out in the
    3 wilderness saying, we need some help. And I truly
    4 believe the Pollution Control Board is wanting to help,
    5 and I believe we're going to get some help. So I thank
    6 you for the opportunity.
    7
    8 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you very much, Mr.
    9 Emmett. You did want to enter those pictures into the
    10 record, did you not?
    11
    12 MR. EMMETT: Yes.
    13
    14 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Mr. Emmett, could you
    15 again clarify where these pictures were taken?
    16
    17 MR. EMMETT: Route 136, between
    Heyworth and
    18
    McLean in McLean County, Illinois.
    19
    20 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Did you take these
    21 pictures?
    22
    23 MR. EMMETT: No, I did not, a gentleman by
    24 the name of Bill
    Potts. Bill is right there. Bill's the
    182
    1 gentleman that took the pictures. He lives right next
    2 door to this.
    3
    4 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Could you swear him in,
    5 please.
    6
    7 (Witness sworn.)
    8
    9 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Did you take these
    10 pictures, sir?
    11
    12 MR. POTTS: I took all those pictures.
    13
    14 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: When did you take them?
    15
    16 MR. POTTS: Last summer. A year ago up until
    17 this Fall. This past Fall.
    18
    19 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: And Mr. --
    20
    21 MR. POTTS: 90,000 head of hog in six-tenths
    22 of a mile. We've had some North of us. We had some
    23 Southeast of us. We had some West of us. So we have 80
    24 to 90,000 hogs within a half mile, a mile and a half of
    183
    1 us. 70,000 hogs produce as much manure as 180,000, which
    2 is in Bloomington-Normal and maybe Clinton and Lincoln.
    3 And we have them there and smell them all the time. We
    4 get the stuff on our windows. And I've got --
    5
    6 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: I probably -- if you want
    7 to testify --
    8
    9 MR. POTTS: I'm sorry. You shouldn't have
    10 put me on, Bill.
    11
    12 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Let the record reflect,
    13 that Mr.
    Emmett's admission of the article, Bad Smells
    14 Make Brain Say P-U, is marked as Exhibit 77 and entered
    15 into the record.
    16 And seven photographs, which he's testified
    17 to will be marked as one exhibit and that will be Exhibit
    18 Number 78.
    19 Any questions from anyone in the audience of
    20 Mr. Emmett? Mr.
    Harrington.
    21
    22 MR. HARRINGTON: Will you please describe
    23 your farm and its size for the record?
    24
    184
    1 MR. EMMETT: Family farm with 320 acres. We
    2 raise cattle, horses and various grain crops.
    3
    4 MR. HARRINGTON: Thank you.
    5
    6 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Doctor Marlin.
    7
    8 MR. MARLIN: I have a couple questions. You
    9 referred to DNR informing you that a study or a ruling
    10 regarding setbacks had come out recently; could you
    11 clarify that?
    12
    13 MR. EMMETT: There's the attorney right
    14 there.
    15
    16 MR. MARLIN: That's EPA?
    17
    18 MR. EMMETT: I'm sorry. I thought it was --
    19
    20 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Who was he pointing to?
    21 Mr.
    Warrington.
    22
    23 MR. MARLIN: Setbacks, if there was something
    24 new, you --
    185
    1 MR. EMMETT: A question I had originally over
    2 two years ago in regard to a setback question, and the
    3 definition of a non-farm business, and we have been six
    4 years trying to get the definition, and finally recently
    5 in the past few weeks --
    6
    7 MR. MARLIN: In your travel over your
    8 personal experience, do you have experience in relation
    9 to the distance from a lagoon or similar facility to
    10 livestock facility that the odor is objectionable to the
    11 point where people are nauseous or unable to do outdoor
    12 activities, such as picnics and barbecues?
    13
    14 MR. EMMETT: Well, people we talk to
    15 distances as long as a mile away. I think we have to be
    16 realistic and we're not -- groups that I belong to are
    17 not attempting to run the pork industry out of Illinois.
    18 We need a viable pork industry in Illinois, but we don't
    19 need a viable pork industry at the expense of people. In
    20 my opinion, people are more important than pork. But we
    21 have to have a realistic setback of a quarter mile, in my
    22 opinion. And from my experience of talking to people
    23 across this country, a quarter mile is absolutely
    24 insufficient.
    186
    1 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you, Mr. Emmett.
    2 Any other questions for Mr. Emmett? Yes, board member
    3
    Meyer.
    4
    5 MR. MEYER: Thank you, madam Chairman. These
    6 facilities that are located in your area, would you
    7 describe your area as being most concentrated in hog
    8 production in the state?
    9
    10 MR. EMMETT: No. No, sir, I would not. The
    11 three hog facilities on 136, there's an extreme
    12 concentration there. I think Bill said 70 to 90,000 pigs
    13 in those three facilities, and there's a very large
    14 concentration. But other areas of the state where we
    15 have a large concentration, Green County. We have a
    16 large concentration in Green County. Total numbers over
    17 there, I'm not sure if there are as many as $200,000,
    18 whether or not that's on site at one time, or whether or
    19 not that's a production, I don't know. But I do know
    20 that the facilities are massive and extensive.
    21
    22 MR. MEYER: How far should setback be?
    23
    24 MR. EMMETT: The organization that I belong
    187
    1 to are asking for three-quarters of a mile. We believe
    2 we need to do away with the
    differentiations of the mid
    3 farm, non-farm. Because as the young lady who spoke
    4 before me said, what's the difference if you're not a
    5 farmer or a farmer. And Bill
    Potts is a farmer, and we
    6 are discriminating against them. The law is
    7 discriminating when it discriminates between farm and
    8 non-farm. I think it's an interpretive problem as to
    9 whether it's farm or non-farm.
    10 What you're saying, three-quarters of a mile,
    11 whether that's totally unreasonable. Our groups could
    12 sit down and talk, but that's what we believe,
    13 three-quarters of a mile, two miles for populated area.
    14 And there was a study, and I think it was mentioned in
    15 earlier testimony, I think over at Galesburg about the
    16 study that IEPA did, but I think Bruce St. John discussed
    17 that. I believe that they studied less than one percent
    18 or about one percent of the counties in the entire state
    19 of Illinois when they did that study, so how valid is
    20 that study.
    21 I have always been of the opinion that if a
    22 large facility wants to move in, they should take the
    23 financial responsibility and purchase the homes and
    24 purchase the land that they need for the setback. Let
    188
    1 them shoulder the financial responsible rather than me,
    2 the resident, shoulder that responsibility.
    3
    4 MR. MEYER: Three-
    quartes of a mile would
    5 solve your problem?
    6
    7 MR. EMMETT: It may not solve the problem,
    8 but I think we have always been of the opinion, doctor,
    9 that we have to be reasonable. We have to be reasonable,
    10 and there has to be a distance set. Some people may
    11 think five miles is proper and obviously, you know, the
    12 majority of us will think that's unreasonable. So we
    13 have to come up with some position.
    14 It's obvious, I think, that anybody that's
    15 looked at the problem at all, a quarter mile is not
    16 adequate for today's industrial sites that we have. It's
    17 just not adequate. And therefore, we have to do
    18 something about that.
    19
    20 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you, Mr. Emmett.
    21 Mr. Emmett, in these pictures there is a white farm house
    22 and some trees and one is an evergreen. Do you know
    23 about that one?
    24
    189
    1 MR. EMMETT: Bill, is that your house?
    2
    3 MR. POTTS: No, it's not my house but it's a
    4 neighbor's and it goes right near his house. It's within
    5 a half a mile of it.
    6
    7 MS. TIPSORD: Is that his field that the
    8 manure has been spread on?
    9
    10 MR. POTTS: No, it's not his field, but it's
    11 his home.
    12
    13 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Are there any other
    14 questions for Mr. Emmett?
    15
    16 MR. HARRINGTON: Could you tell me where you
    17 got the numbers for the number of pigs in your county?
    18
    19 MR. EMMETT: An article, and also Mr.
    Potts
    20 lives right there and he his familiar with the
    21 facilities, I am not so -- you know, with the numbers.
    22 There was an article that the
    Panograph did, I believe it
    23 was back in December, where they interviewed
    24 representatives from that company and area residents.
    190
    1 MR. HARRINGTON: Talk to number of pigs on
    2 site at any one time?
    3
    4 MR. EMMETT: I would have to refer to Bill.
    5 I believe Bill knows those three facilities, that's what
    6 they were talking about.
    7
    8 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: You can answer, Bill.
    9
    10 MR. POTTS: Well, I would like to do -- and
    11 my wife says don't. This is a letter sent to the
    12
    Panograph by my son, Jack. I'm a U of I graduate way
    13 back in '49, my father graduated from there, my son
    14 graduated from there in '43. We all majored in
    15 agriculture. We're on a 100 year old farm. I would like
    16 to read this, which I think hits it on the head.
    17
    18 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Excuse me, Bill.
    19
    20 MR. POTTS: And I'm not --
    21
    22 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Is it responsive to Mr.
    23
    Harrington's question?
    24
    191
    1 MR. POTTS: Yeah, I'm going to tell him.
    2
    3 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Will you go over to the
    4 microphone?
    5
    6 MR. POTTS: Okay. This is the first one I've
    7 been to.
    8
    9 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Okay.
    10
    11 MR. POTTS: My family -- my grandparents
    12 settled in
    McLean County in the 1850s and '60s, so we've
    13 been around a long time. I'll go over this. My son
    14 wrote this very well to the
    Panograph in Bloomington.
    15 Standards for effective hog operation. Some folks still
    16 don't get it. After three years of steadily rising
    17 opposition, the factory hog operations, these for
    18
    incorporations still believe they can keep building in
    19 Illinois without addressing the issues of odor,
    20 pollution, waste disposal and their impact on the
    21 citizens and the land. We the people and the land are
    22 not being protected by society as society promised.
    23 Zoning needs to be changed to reflect the issues on the
    24 21st century, not the 19th. Our culture is not
    192
    1 connected -- our culture is not connected to the land as
    2 it was 100 years ago. For many people, out of site is
    3 out of mind. However, with the concentration and
    4 economic power that the actions of a few can and do have
    5 serious long-term consequences upon this earth we call
    6 home. We live in a unique echo system. Any school child
    7 can tell us about the Roosevelt Home, acid rain, cutting
    8 of the Rain Forest, man's cumulative impact. Between
    9
    McLean and Heyworth, there are 70 to 90,000 hogs in a two
    10 mile area. I live right between them. There's an
    11 operation a little over a half a mile over. Anytime the
    12 wind blows, I have it.
    13 We talked to Mr. Taylor, I believe it was two
    14 years ago, called him about it, he said, you document
    15 this when you get odors. I have over 90 of them but we
    16 missed a lot of them.
    17 We have over 70 to 90,000 hogs in a two mile
    18 area. They have turned this area we call our home into a
    19 dump site for manure. You've seen the pictures. They
    20 pour six to 7,000 gallon of manure per acre on the land
    21 and throw a few inches of soil over it; most of time, not
    22 that much. The manure oozes out and lies exposed to the
    23 elements and does for weeks. It's a nightmare for people
    24 and it's a travesty of our stewardship for our state
    193
    1 soils. Drive by these fields after a Spring rain,
    2 there's inadequate residue upon the soil surface, and
    3 significant erosion running into the waters of this
    4 state.
    5 I had one picture I didn't enlarge, I wish I
    6 had. It's a half a mile East of 136 in one of their
    7 facility where they have houses. Prairie Creek. I have
    8 the picture at home, and they put that manure on as close
    9 as we are to the bleacher seats over there, and there are
    10 big drainpipes going into the creek.
    11 With a legacy -- what legacy will we leave to
    12 our children? Are the people of Illinois going to
    13 forsake the responsibilities and allow balance sheets to
    14 prevail over the heritage we have entrusted County Zoning
    15 regarding explosion of factory hog forms in Illinois.
    16 Land and air can't absorb such extreme
    17 numbers of animals in a limited zone, zone for it,
    18 mandate it, the no till placement of manure to alleviate
    19 soil erosion. Industry isn't allowed to pollute our air.
    20 Factory hog farms should be held to reasonable standards.
    21 A proper balance and respect for our state's environment
    22 will result. Signed, Jack
    Potts.
    23 I want to thank you for letting me voice my
    24 opinion.
    194
    1 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Mr.
    Harrington, do you
    2 have a follow-up question?
    3
    4 MR. HARRINGTON: Can you tell me the basis
    5 for the number of pigs?
    6
    7 MR. POTTS: One of their own people told me
    8 in a year ago last Fall, that they had one unit North of
    9 us as two units, 25,000 hogs in it and manure. I'd have
    10 to talk to
    Heartford representatives, whoever manages it.
    11
    12 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you, Mr.
    Potts.
    13
    14 MR. POTTS: Thank you.
    15
    16 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you, Mr. Emmett,
    17 very much.
    18 And now we'll be moving along to the
    19 testimony of David Thompson.
    20
    21 MR. THOMPSON: Good afternoon. My name is
    22 David E. Thompson. My wife and I own and operate a pig
    23 farm near Pearl City, Illinois. Currently, we have 300
    24 100,000 bird layers, and one 100,000 pullet barbs.
    195
    1 Manure handled in solid form versus liquid. Sell it to
    2 mushroom farms and organic farmers. Remainder, spread on
    3 as fertilizer on corn, soybeans and hay fields. I'm
    4 director and intern president of the Illinois Poultry
    5 Counsel, active member of the Midwest Egg Producers, and
    6 served as a alternate on the Board of Midwest Poultry
    7 Federation. I have approximately 20 years experience in
    8 the AG industry.
    9 Illinois Poultry Industry Counsel supports
    10 the passage of the Livestock Management Facilities Act,
    11 but as it now excludes most of the egg farms that I'm
    12 aware of in Illinois. Section 1010 defines how
    13 animal units are calculated. Number nine laying hens or
    14 broiler multiplied by .01, so they're referring to .01
    15 animal units, and that's if the facility has overflow
    16 water. 10 laying hens or boilers, multiplied by .03, if
    17 the facility has liquid manure handling system. Since
    18 there are no egg farms in Illinois with continuous
    19 flowing water, and probably no egg facilities with liquid
    20 manure handling systems, this language excludes the
    21 laying hens and boilers in Illinois from this act.
    22 While talking with Mr. A. G. Taylor, IEPA, on
    23 January 27th, 1997, I believe he stated that these animal
    24 unit calculations were based upon federal standards
    196
    1 developed in 1972. I think today he said '73. If this
    2 is the case, then the calculations are vastly outdated.
    3 General net assist in the egg industry have
    4 now developed a much smaller and more efficient bird.
    5 The egg laying chicken of the early 1970s probably
    6 weighed four to five plus pounds, and used 23 to 36 or
    7 more pounds of feed per 100 birds per day. Today's
    8 laying hens weighed approximately 3.4 to 3.6 pounds, and
    9 consume an average of about 22 to 23 pounds per 100 birds
    10 per day. Today's laying hens are also much more
    11 efficient and convert feed into eggs rather than manure.
    12 In fact, an egg producer in the early 1970s thought he
    13 was doing a good job if he had 175 eggs per hen house by
    14 60 weeks of age. Today, our chickens are routinely
    15 producing 235 to 240 eggs by 60 weeks of age. Laying
    16 hens today are much different than birds of 25 years ago.
    17 Therefore, if .01 was an appropriate animal unit
    18 calculation 25 years ago, then a lesser figure would
    19 logically be realistic in 1997. This is especially true
    20 because of the .01 figure included wording about
    21 continuous overflow of water in the description, which
    22 added to the amount of waste generated by the flock.
    23 Consequently, I respectfully request that .01
    24 figure be modified to reflect the smaller more efficient
    197
    1 layer today, and reference to continuous overflow water
    2 be deleted from the section Tennessee language. I
    3 therefore recommend the animal unit for laying chickens
    4 to reflect the genetic improvement in the layer. A more
    5 .0089 for egg laying chickens with middle or cup
    6 drinkers. My reasoning is based upon the breeders
    7 management guides that I have that are supplied with this
    8 written testimony. Decal B. Poultry Management Guide is
    9 dated 1979, it was their most popular layer at that time.
    10 The mature body size was 39 pounds. Is showing to be
    11 23.777 to 26.5 pounds per 100 birds per day. The Decal
    12 B. is the current bird, which is the most popular --
    13 Decal's most popular bird at this time and has a much
    14 smaller body size. It's body size is shown at 3.53
    15 pounds. Also feed consumption, 21.9 to 26 -- weeks, 21.9
    16 to 22.6 per 100 birds per day. 1979 body weight, 39 to
    17 42; average it out to 4.05 pounds. Use the 1996 body
    18 weight of the current Decal B. bird is 3.53. Of .01 the
    19 animal unit that we're currently using, .0087; if you
    20 round it out, .009, recommending we use as the new
    21 animal.
    22 Also missing from the section 1010, Animal
    23 Units, is a category for immature laying hens known as
    24 pullets. They should have a category for young animals,
    198
    1 should be a category for pullets. The reasoning behind
    2 this, the amount of feed consumed during the growing
    3 period compared to the amount of feed consumed by adult
    4 layers for the same time period. If you take Decal B.
    5 Poultry Management Guide and look at their cumulative
    6 feed consumption for 17 weeks, you'll see that they're
    7 projecting that pullet would be 11.97 pounds to feed per
    8 bird, that's a cumulative consumption for the complete 17
    9 weeks. If you take a mature decap pullet -- or excuse
    10 me, mature decaplit up layer from 19 currently. 1996 to
    11 1997, you'll see that their mature feed consumption, 21.9
    12 to 22.62 pounds, which averages out, if you take the
    13 average, they're .223. If mature bird gets .223 pounds
    14 of feed per day, then 17 weeks she would eat 17 times
    15 seven days in the week times .2234 or 26.54 pounds of
    16 feed. A pullet then only needs 41.5 percent of an
    17 adult -- of the feed that an adult bird would consume in
    18 the same 17 week period. I got that number by dividing
    19 11.97, which is what a pullet eats in 17 weeks, divided
    20 by the 26.54, equals 45.1 percent. Therefore, I
    21 recommend the realistic value for pullets is .0034. My
    22 reasoning and calculations are shown below. Take .009
    23 recommended adult layer of animal unit value, multiplied
    24 by .551, equals .0041 or rounded off .004. This is also
    199
    1 another reason for adding the category of pullets to
    2 section 1010. To the egg producers, raise their
    3 replacement stocks. That pullets on farms should be
    4 separate from older hens, so not to expose the growing
    5 birds to the diseases before they have appropriate time.
    6 In summary, I recommend the reference section
    7 1010 to overflow water be deleted. Number two, animal
    8 unit for laying, 10.01 to .009, and category pullets be
    9 added to section 1010 with .04 as the appropriate animal
    10 unit.
    11 Thank you for considering my testimony.
    12
    13 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you, Mr. Thompson.
    14 Would you like to enter as an exhibit the attachments
    15 that you have to your testimony?
    16
    17 MR. THOMPSON: Yes.
    18
    19 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Seeing that you already
    20 gave those to me, I will take off your testimony that you
    21 have read into the record and we'll mark the document,
    22 Excel-Link Performance Objectives, which also includes
    23 the Decal B. Delta Accelerated Program into the record as
    24 Exhibit Number 79.
    200
    1 Are there any questions for Mr. Thompson?
    2
    3 MS. MANNING: I guess I don't understand the
    4 point about inclusion or non-inclusion of the statute.
    5 It sounds like your testimony is, you don't believe any
    6 egg farms are included in the statute because neither of
    7 them fit the .9 or .10 definition.
    8
    9 MR. THOMPSON: There is nothing included in
    10 the statute, because the statute reads layers of broilers
    11 with continuous overflow of water, and there aren't any.
    12 There aren't any farms like that in Illinois that I'm
    13 aware of, and I don't believe there are any farms that
    14 have liquid manure systems in Illinois.
    15
    16 MS. MANNING: Could you define continuous
    17 overflow water for us?
    18
    19 MR. THOMPSON: Continuous water running down
    20 a trough in front of the cages, and then when it goes by
    21 the chickens once, and if they don't drink it, it goes
    22 out into the pit or lagoon or whatever they've got to
    23 catch the water. It's a very inefficient way and dirty
    24 way of watering birds. It seems to waste -- spread
    201
    1 disease and waste energy. Current cages use nibbles or
    2 watering cups. So by specifying that, you're only
    3 covering layers of broilers with continuous overflow
    4 watering, you're excluding the rest of the layers.
    5
    6 MS. MANNING: And liquid manure handling, the
    7 system, how are the droppings in your situation?
    8
    9 MR. THOMPSON: Droppings fall through the
    10 bottom of the cage onto a conveyer belt, and the conveyer
    11 belt runs the length of the cages and falls onto another
    12 conveyer belt, and it's taken out to my compost building.
    13 We try to keep the matter and manure separate. You have
    14 much less odor. It's a lot healthier for everybody if
    15 you don't have water mixed in the manure.
    16
    17 MS. MANNING: In terms of statutory language
    18 we're not in position to deal with standing statutory
    19 language in terms of numbers. I appreciate your
    20 testimony, especially the sort of coverage issue.
    21
    22 MR. THOMPSON: I just thought you should be
    23 aware of it.
    24
    202
    1 MS. MANNING: I don't understand whether you
    2 want to be covered or not. Does he want to be in the act
    3 or does he like being out of the act?
    4
    5 MR. THOMPSON: No, I support the act. I
    6 think it's necessary.
    7
    8 MS. MANNING: You just assume be covered by
    9 it?
    10 MR. THOMPSON: Yeah, I think you should
    11 delete the continuing overflow watering system.
    12
    13 MR. WARRINGTON: I believe you said that you
    14 had a livestock waste handing facility at your operation?
    15
    16 MR. THOMPSON: I don't know what you mean.
    17
    18 MR. WARRINGTON: You collect it, compose it
    19 and spread it?
    20
    21 MR. THOMPSON: Sure.
    22
    23 MR. WARRINGTON: The Livestock Facility
    24 Management Act, that is a covered operation. So although
    203
    1 you can be fitting it to any of the categories, the
    2 animal units or list conversion factors, your operations
    3 handling that waste would be covered by the Livestock
    4 Management Facility Act.
    5
    6 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you. Mr. Meyer.
    7
    8 MR. MEYER: I understand you collect waste
    9 from a conveyer?
    10
    11 MR. THOMPSON: Yes, sir.
    12
    13 MR. MEYER: Are you familiar with Wisconsin's
    14 rule, which for some reason they have apparently
    15 prohibited or --
    16
    17 MR. THOMPSON: There are operations similar
    18 to mine in Wisconsin, so I believe Wisconsin's laws must
    19 be somewhat similar to Illinois.
    20
    21 MR. MEYER: Are there regulations as to the
    22 amount of application?
    23
    24 MR. THOMPSON: Yes, I believe Wisconsin does
    204
    1 do much the same as this act is requiring, where we would
    2 keep track of how much manure we spread on the ground and
    3 only apply anaerobic weights.
    4
    5 MR. MEYER: Does Illinois have regulations?
    6
    7 MR. THOMPSON: I think it will, as soon as
    8 you pass this act.
    9
    10 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you. Any other
    11 questions for Mr. Thompson? Thank you very much, Mr.
    12 Thompson.
    13 And Ms. Janet Fritz, you can go on with your
    14 testimony.
    15
    16 (Witness sworn.)
    17
    18 MS. FRITZ: Thank you for this opportunity.
    19 This is quite a honor to be here in front of you. I am
    20 an American farmer for 55 years, but I brought my little
    21 scrapbook from when I was real young. And of course,
    22 when you live on a farm all these years, one of the first
    23 things you get into is problems with input/output, that
    24 seems to be America's way of feeding the people and
    205
    1 feeding the animals and everything on earth. So I just
    2 wanted to give you a little bit of important information.
    3 I'll read this one article first and then I'll go into
    4 basic food groups, because I think you all got into all
    5 your labels. We want all the metabolism and energy into
    6 all your labels, very good, but I don't think anybody is
    7 watching what is going on. So let's take a look. If I
    8 can give you some information. And as far as the hearing
    9 today, it's just input/output, and we've got to get it to
    10 you and got to get rid of it, and it seems to be a pretty
    11 good job until just recently, and let's see if we can
    12 solve some problems.
    13 My name is Janet K. Fritz. I'm an
    14 American farmer of 55 years. There remains 440 years of
    15 family crop, and livestock and gardening within the
    16 family realm on behalf of all the people. Our operation
    17 is 526 crop acres and farrow to finish of 700 butchers
    18 per year.
    19 I am pleased with the opportunity to attend
    20 the University of Iowa, as I can now relate to my work in
    21 the cafeteria as a transfer of food resources from the
    22 farm that allows study to take place.
    23 I am also proud of my participation in 4H
    24 programs, and chairperson of the cooperative extension
    206
    1 programs, and teaching Sunday School and Bible School.
    2 The support of the local school with second, and third,
    3 fourth graders and some adults coming to the farm to
    4 learn about the free food chain, will likely be the
    5 highlight of mine in the American culture.
    6 I believe once we're taught the principles of
    7 agriculture across 120 billion acres of soil and water,
    8 along with the metabolism and energy of calories in the
    9 basic food groups, the signature of purpose for all
    10 hearings will be based upon common knowledge for humanity
    11 and dignity of all free resources for all families.
    12 I also find the reference to eight, eight
    13 ounce glasses of water per day for 182.5 gallons of water
    14 per year, per person, a common knowledge focussed. If it
    15 is understood that 19 million gallons of water is held in
    16 the top 100 feet of soil per acre, and how the capillary
    17 attraction allows the water to be available for us, then
    18 common knowledge will reflect the confidence for checks
    19 and balances. Along with 27,000 gallons of water per
    20 inch of rain per acre begins to reach a literate comfort
    21 zone for our water intake.
    22 With 55 years reflecting all areas of crop
    23 and livestock records, along with testing resources
    24 dating back to 1932 at the University of Illinois, I
    207
    1 believe the support of home preparation, agriculture
    2 intelligence and Bible literature remain true and correct
    3 today, as my records show each year for free public
    4 support of 11,100,000 meals and the allowance for
    5 billions of snacks and meals by common knowledge for all.
    6 And we'll go into this a little later.
    7 I must first make clear to the 32 people
    8 within this hearing what I think common knowledge is to
    9 my records. From the kitchen, five groups of children in
    10 my care over the years with three in one group, my own;
    11 in the field for crops from start to finish, and
    12 livestock care from start to finish with all varieties in
    13 healthy positions with records, gram scale, testing
    14 records of all kinds, including manure handling from the
    15 40s to today's movement of intake. There has to be a
    16 lesson here for all to put their signature to the test of
    17 the free school house of life.
    18 Keep in mind we were 50 years behind -- Keep
    19 in mind we were 50 years behind by the notes offered with
    20 this document from the First Principles of Agriculture,
    21 but by the notes of the metabolism and energy from the
    22 1700s, I believe we are further behind than anyone ever
    23 imagined could happen overall in such a short period of
    24 neglect of the education system.
    208
    1 The Illinois Department of Agriculture
    2 released the dates for 50,000 hog producers with the
    3 decline to 9,600 last year, with another 11 percent
    4 decline this year to the lowest number of hogs in the
    5 history of Illinois in the distribution system. I repeat
    6 that, the distribution system. The way we're set up
    7 today, the very efficient. Yet here we are presenting a
    8 hearing to the public for reasons of unknown origin to
    9 come up with a solution for the common knowledge of
    10 nutritional intake and purpose of a given operation.
    11 Another point for math reveals that the state
    12 of Illinois produces more than enough basic food groups
    13 to feed the whole country with the nutritional intake to
    14 support these cells of life all around us with no concept
    15 of the waste handling upon the soil for the cause and
    16 effect of maturity of the cells of life I just talked
    17 about.
    18 I will tell you that I have not found a 90
    19 year old with agricultural experience that recognizes the
    20 billions of meals and snacks provided by his or her being
    21 for public intake. Nor at the grade school level, for
    22 which most common knowledge has to be maintained for best
    23 use. Nor high school, college degree, masters or PHD
    24 status recognizes the maintenance of checks and balances
    209
    1 for universal literate comfort recognized at the first
    2 mouthful of food at birth for all cells to work in
    3 harmony in common knowledge for all.
    4 In the few seconds it takes to present these
    5 few words of common knowledge, it is recognized with
    6 respect for the comment for, why was I never taught such
    7 reasonable dignity to teach others common resources for
    8 all families of intelligent origin.
    9 It is an honor to serve my fellow heritage
    10 free for the past 55 years. I do have a civic duty to
    11 teach by the notes of this day for signature of reference
    12 for all generations to come. In your jurisdiction, as
    13 well as my own record, of universal heritage of
    14 intelligence and resources relative to everything under
    15 the sun.
    16 Thank you for your time, and I do have a few
    17 things here that I wish to --
    18
    19 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Enter into the record as
    20 an exhibit.
    21
    22 MS. FRITZ: As an exhibit, Metabolism and
    23 Energy Resource. And I mentioned a little bit earlier, I
    24 mentioned the fact that USDA went and we went to all
    210
    1 kinds of work. I have nothing to do with the USDA, but I
    2 feel a part of it since I've been in the world, and
    3 animals all these years. But if you -- if you're
    4 participating in church or anything -- I mean, we just
    5 had the hunger walk and all the churches said two-thirds
    6 of the world was eating a cup of cereal or a cup of food
    7 per day. Now when you get home, look at your cereal
    8 boxes, and it goes 110 calories across every box, and it
    9 may be three-quarters of a cup, or it may be one and a
    10 half cups.
    11 But when you look at the metabolism in energy
    12 factors, it matters not what is in that cup --
    13
    14 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Is this somehow related
    15 to livestock management facilities?
    16
    17 MS. FRITZ: I mean, he told you how much the
    18 chickens ate. And when you look at metabolism and energy
    19 by the First Principles of Agriculture, 1904, we knew --
    20 we knew exactly what everybody said today because of --
    21 now listen to this, one gram -- and how many of us have a
    22 gram scale? All we do is eat and we feel fine, thank you
    23 very much. But we don't even know how much we eat
    24 because we don't have a gram scale. This is telling you
    211
    1 what's going on, whether it's me, you, your dog, a cat, a
    2 hog, a cow, and it references it per pound in this book.
    3
    4 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you. What I'll do
    5 is have Ms. Tipsord take it.
    6
    7 MS. FRITZ: Oh, you don't want to know 28.5
    8 grams is one ounce? But that goes right with this USDA.
    9 I want this in there too. This came out recently.
    10 Now we just did -- and it's beautiful. We
    11 took all the food that -- that was around the country and
    12 we collected it for the poor. Mr. Gickman reports
    13 many -- Mr. Gickman reports they collected 13.8 billions
    14 of pounds of food, which fed 49 million people.
    15 Now how many of you knew that you averaged
    16 282 pounds per person per year? Nor did you know that it
    17 cost you three cents a pound or --
    18
    19 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Ms. Fritz, excuse me.
    20
    21 MS. FRITZ: I want that put in.
    22
    23 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Enter your exhibits then.
    24
    212
    1 MS. FRITZ: Does she have this one?
    2
    3 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: We're going to break and
    4 give everyone a limited time because we're running out of
    5 time, and I hate to cut you off.
    6
    7 MS. FRITZ: I know you do, because you didn't
    8 do that to anybody else.
    9
    10 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: But I'm going to have to
    11 do it with anybody after you.
    12
    13 MS. FRITZ: I do have three books.
    14
    15 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: But you're not entering
    16 those books as exhibits?
    17
    18 MS. FRITZ: They're mentioned in there.
    19
    20 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: You don't need to enter
    21 them in the record because you won't get them back.
    22
    23 MS. FRITZ: There's Illinois Farmers
    24 Institute, Household science is another one with the
    213
    1 basic food groups as I mentioned over 100 times. I hope
    2 you find out that what farmers put into you, all of these
    3 different products that come across the table here is
    4 identical per poundage. And if you study it very long,
    5 you will know how much you need to have if you're going
    6 to have confinement.
    7
    8 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you. Thank you,
    9 Let the record reflect, Metabolism and Energy article is
    10 marked as Exhibit Number 80.
    11 Let the record reflect article titled, USDA
    12 Leads Effort to Feed Hungry with Surplus Food, marked as
    13 Exhibit 81.
    14 And let the record reflect that the testimony
    15 of Janet Fritz has been marked as Exhibit Number 82.
    16 Thank you very much. And what I would like
    17 to do, take a 10 minute break and come back on the record
    18 with the remainder of the witnesses, starting with these
    19 people, if they can come and sit at the front table:
    20 Mike Veenhuizer, Jamie Wilright, Dwayne Haig and Harvey
    21 Fisher. And then all of these persons who have signed up
    22 on this list, we'll get to all of you. And I apologize
    23 for the lateness of the hour.
    24 Does anyone have questions for Ms. Fritz?
    214
    1 All right. Thank you.
    2
    3 (At this time a break was taken.)
    4
    5 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: A note for the record,
    6 Mr. Dwayne Haig did leave; however, he gave me some
    7 testimony which will be filed.
    8 All right, will the court reporter swear them
    9 in?
    10
    11 (Panel was sworn in.)
    12
    13 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Mr. Harrington, would you
    14 like to comment?
    15
    16 MR. HARRINGTON: Doctor Michael A.
    17 Veenhuitzen, ask him to present his testimony at this
    18 time.
    19
    20 MR. VEENHUIZEN: Thank you. I'd like to say
    21 it is a pleasure to have an opportunity to speak to this
    22 board this afternoon.
    23 My name is Mike Veenhuizen. I am the owner
    24 of Livestock Engineering Solutions, and engineering
    215
    1 consulting service located in Greenwood, Indiana. I
    2 started Livestock Engineering Solutions in May of '94,
    3 and have provided service to livestock producers across
    4 the Midwest. My responsibilities and activities include
    5 the planning, designing, recommended management and
    6 construction of manure and wastewater handling, storage,
    7 and treatment systems, building ventilation, animal
    8 housing systems and farmstead engineering. Prior to
    9 starting Livestock Engineering Solutions, I was assistant
    10 professional in Agriculture Engineering and State
    11 Extension Agricultural Engineer for livestock systems at
    12 Ohio State University. During that time, I worked with
    13 several agricultural producers in the area of manure and
    14 waste water management, livestock housing, ventilation
    15 and farmstead design. Prior to my experiences at Ohio
    16 State University, I was employed for seven years with
    17 Midwest Plan Service in Ames, Iowa, where I was
    18 responsible for developing technical handbooks, bulletins
    19 and plans pertaining to livestock housing and waste
    20 management.
    21 I received both a Bachelor of Science Degree
    22 in Agricultural Engineering, and a Master of Science
    23 Degree in Agricultural Engineering from Purdue
    24 University, and a PhD in Agricultural Engineering from
    216
    1 Iowa State University. I have been a member of the
    2 American Society of Agriculture Engineers since 1982. I
    3 have been recently appointed to the National Agricultural
    4 Air Quality Task Force.
    5 Today, I would like to provide testimony in
    6 support of these proposed rules.
    7 As an engineering designer of manure and
    8 waste water management systems, I am interested in sound
    9 environmental guidelines for the design and construction
    10 of earthen livestock waste lagoons that are practical and
    11 economical. In reviewing the proposed rules, I would
    12 like to speak in support of many of the design and siting
    13 criteria, and offer some of my interpretations.
    14 Like to address subpart B on standards for
    15 livestock waste lagoons, section 506.204 sets forth
    16 parameters for the design and modified lagoon, and
    17 specifically addresses two reference guidelines, Design a
    18 Lagoon and Waste Management Engineering Practice,
    19 EPO4.301, and what's published by the USDA technical
    20 guide; both of these documents provide acceptable design
    21 values when used to design livestock. I professionally
    22 and personally used these references for guidance and
    23 support, and they're inclusion in the proposed rules is
    24 to be complemented.
    217
    1 I would like to note though, that the ASAE
    2 Engineering Practice 403.1 has been revised and replaced
    3 with ASAE EP403.2, December of '92, and I would recommend
    4 the inclusion of the most standard reference and
    5 provision be made to allow for future inclusion of the
    6 current standards as data is made available. One
    7 significant change is the removal of a generalized manure
    8 production, table one from the Engineering Practice, and
    9 a reference to ASAE D384.1, and a reference to data
    10 standard on Manure Production and Characteristics, which
    11 is a more comprehensive and representative of manure
    12 production values.
    13 In addition to these two standards and
    14 references, I have often relied on other current research
    15 data and documented resource information, such as
    16 Livestock Waste Facilities Handbook and others subject to
    17 approval. I would suggest that the department be given
    18 the authority to approve the use of documented references
    19 that accept these that demonstrate the current thinking
    20 and capabilities as you address these standards in your
    21 rules.
    22 In addressing the specific parts of the
    23 lagoon design standards, I would like to briefly review
    24 and discuss the biological process of what we're trying
    218
    1 to discuss. Anaerobic lagoons are used to stabilize
    2 livestock manure by taking advantage of the natural
    3 biological processes. In the absence of oxygen, all high
    4 strength organic wastes, like manure, will be digested by
    5 anaerobic bacteria. Advantages of these anaerobic
    6 lagoons, which are specified in the rules, include high
    7 degree of waste stabilization; high dilution rate for
    8 reduced odor emissions; lower land application odors; and
    9 volume reduction due to the conversion of solids to
    10 methane gas and carbon dioxide.
    11 A properly functioning livestock waste lagoon
    12 contains two distinct types of acid formers and methane
    13 formers which act to break down the organic wastes and
    14 convert them to organic acids, and also convert the
    15 organic acids to methane gas, water and carbon dioxide.
    16 I present this information relative to the function and
    17 design of anaerobic lagoons as it relates to the impact
    18 on air quality and odor emissions.
    19 A well functioning anaerobic lagoon will have
    20 a relatively constant level of suspended solids and
    21 dissolved minerals. The design of an anaerobic lagoon is
    22 intended to reduce the potential for odor emissions.
    23 Little or no odor will be detectable, except possibly
    24 possibly during a short warm up period in the Spring in
    219
    1 colder climates, which is your experience in Illinois.
    2 However, adequate design and dilution volumes, as part of
    3 the management strategies of our producers, when
    4 temperatures are warming can buffer the loading rate and
    5 reduce the potential of an odor risk.
    6 The treatment efficiency and performance of a
    7 lagoon is greatly dependent on the loading rate, and the
    8 amount of dilution water or concentration of waste in the
    9 lagoon. A well function anaerobic lagoon requires a
    10 continuous loading of manure and waste waters. In
    11 addition to that, when starting up a lagoon, an adequate
    12 dilution volume is needed to assure sufficient treatment.
    13 Considering the essential features necessary
    14 for a properly designed and managed lagoon, I would like
    15 to address briefly the following issues: Minimum
    16 treatment volume; manure storage volume; runoff wash
    17 water volumes; storage volumes; emergency storm volumes
    18 and sludge accumulation as it effects the start up
    19 operations of these facilities. The design values
    20 calculated in manure indicated in the Engineering
    21 Practice, represented at EP403.1. Take into
    22 consideration a climatic condition and by the activity
    23 insurance for treatment. Volatile solid loading dates
    24 for calculating minimum treatment problems are based on
    220
    1 engineering data standards at D384.1, which provides a
    2 comprehensive set of data on livestock species and size.
    3 Use of a more complete data will allow the designer an
    4 opportunity to minimize the environmental impact. The
    5 proposed rules, based on table one of EP403.1, if my
    6 proposal is accepted, a table will not be included and so
    7 I would refer you to ASAE D384.1 or chapter four of the
    8 U.S. Agriculture Waste Facilities Handbook.
    9 When interpreting rainfall lagoon surface on
    10 any runoff area, I have assumed this volume represents
    11 the expected rainfall on the lagoon surface of the
    12 design. Rainfall and evaporation rates vary across the
    13 state; for example, the annual rainfall maps and lack
    14 fall evaporation for Illinois vary from 32 to 48 inches
    15 for rainfall, and 30 to 36 inches for evaporation. This
    16 is not allowed for consideration of volumes necessary for
    17 the different designs, storage, length and rain cycle on
    18 our production facilities.
    19 In review of these designed standards and
    20 proposed rules, two options presented for determining the
    21 required freeboard above the design volumes. One foot
    22 freeboard is required for less than 300, with no runoff
    23 or collection. And two foot freeboard is recommended for
    24 all other lagoon configuration and production sizes. It
    221
    1 is my opinion that the freeboard in our designs is
    2 intended to provide a safety volume above the design
    3 volume.
    4 In consideration of that, there's no mention
    5 of a storage volume for an emergency event, such as a 25
    6 year, 24 hour storm. For Illinois, this may vary from
    7 4.75 inches to six inches of rainfall. And this rainfall
    8 is independent of that size or production volume.
    9 Therefore, to provide adequate safety volume of one or
    10 more emergency storms or other emergency volumes, it is
    11 my opinion and recommendation that this two foot
    12 freeboard, which includes in the design volume a 25 year,
    13 24 hour storm volume be recommended for all of this.
    14 The proposed rules refer to design sludge
    15 storage volume, which is necessary for long-term storage
    16 of either non or slow biodegradable solids. Typically, a
    17 design would include a five to 20 year sludge life. This
    18 volume consist of two components which I consider
    19 important as you consider the operation of the unit. A
    20 couple to the unit and have a high solid content with
    21 little biological break down activity. There is,
    22 however, a very thick slurry layer that exists within the
    23 inert solid and the design treatment volume. This layer
    24 is high in solids and dissolved solids that is too
    222
    1 concentrated to a -- for biological activity to occur.
    2 These volumes are in fact accounted for in the design
    3 numbers specified in the engineering practice.
    4 The significance of this, as I look at it,
    5 from start up and odor release as it represents an
    6 advantage of the start up of the lagoon, because if takes
    7 some time for these various inert and condensed solid
    8 layers to develop, so it provides us additional dilution
    9 and start up volume to reduce the risk of odor
    10 degeneration.
    11 Lagoon design standard section of proposed
    12 rules, it states that water shall be added to a newly
    13 constructed or modified lagoon 60 percent of the design
    14 depth prior to the initial -- of waste. This is in fact
    15 a very important feature in the management start up of
    16 the lagoon to assure adequate start up with minimal
    17 potential for odors. Minimal design volumes should be in
    18 place before manure is added.
    19 Based on a specific loading rate, pollution
    20 level, waste concentration and biological activity to
    21 insure successful operation, it is my recommendation that
    22 the start up volume be specified more specifically to
    23 include the minimum design volume rather than a
    24 percentage of the design depth. Depending on the lagoon
    223
    1 configuration specification that requires 60 percent of
    2 the design depth may overfill the lagoon, costing the
    3 land owner additional pumping time and reduced storage
    4 capacity, or may under fill the lagoon, increasing the
    5 risk of a slow start up.
    6 So in trying to minimize and to follow the
    7 standards that we have specified here, I would suggest
    8 that you look at the design volume rather than a fixed
    9 depth.
    10 The other part of the proposed rules I would
    11 like to address is subpart G on setbacks. My testimony
    12 has dealt specifically with lagoon design standards
    13 needed to successfully design and start up a lagoon as it
    14 is associated with minimizing or eliminating the odor,
    15 potential odor risk. Minimal design criteria is based on
    16 achieving a high degree with minimum release of odors.
    17 Sludge accumulation is based on achieving storage volume
    18 or predicted storage length for the inert solids
    19 contained. Manure, wash water and rainfall storage
    20 volumes are what I consider working volumes, it must be
    21 removed on a design storage length. All of these design
    22 volumes take into consideration the potential for odor
    23 release and the objective to minimize odor release. It
    24 is recognized that it is very likely that some level of
    224
    1 odor may be generated due to the activities with
    2 livestock production. And undoubtedly, odor control is
    3 an important design and management issue considered on
    4 modern livestock sites. Goal of lagoon design criteria
    5 in siting requirements, minimize odor and impact of
    6 indoor/outdoor air quality.
    7 I would support the fact that the rules do
    8 address these in sufficient detail. Subpart G
    9 establishes the recommended minimal separation buffer to
    10 protect air quality and to control the impact livestock
    11 reduction.
    12 Several factors are involved in establishing
    13 appropriate setback distance. Some of these factors
    14 include lagoon design and waste handling methods,
    15 facility direction and distance of waste handling
    16 structures, and occupied structures and prevailing
    17 weather patterns.
    18 I would like to speak in support of the
    19 proposed setback distances as they are referred to in
    20 these proposed rules and outlined in the Livestock
    21 Management Facilities Act. It is recognized that setback
    22 distances have a delusional effect to mix and blend odors
    23 generated from livestock production. Fresh air reduces
    24 the impact before it reaches a neighboring area or
    225
    1 populated area.
    2 Lagoon design standards outlined in the Rules
    3 and Modern Management Practices, recommended setback
    4 distances provide an adequate separation between
    5 livestock production areas and neighbors and monilated
    6 areas. That identifies required separation for livestock
    7 units with more than 50 animal units and less than a
    8 quarter mile and half a mile from occupied non-farm
    9 residence and nearest populated areas. These are typical
    10 separation distances for this size livestock production
    11 unit. Typical recommendations in some local and state
    12 setbacks are based on the same setback distances, quarter
    13 mile. Clinton County, Indiana has established local
    14 setback distances for livestock productions of thousand
    15 animal units for less than a quarter mile of neighboring
    16 residences and successfully achieved a balance between
    17 the neighboring residences and agriculture production.
    18 It is reasonable, however, and practical to assume that a
    19 number of animals on one side and production volume can
    20 have an effect on the degree of dilution or separation
    21 distance needed; although; little data demonstrates.
    22 Based on my observations, I would support the
    23 recommended incremental increases of 220 feet for every
    24 additional head. 440 for every additional head of a
    226
    1 thousand for a populated area with minimal setbacks of a
    2 half mile or one mile respectively for livestock greater
    3 than a thousand. 7000 animal units provides a suitable
    4 isolation buffer. It is worth noting, however, that
    5 these separation distances provide a suitable isolation
    6 and to minimize the frequency and of odor release.
    7 Setback distances can further enhanced by natural land
    8 shoulder belts, upward mixing of odors into the
    9 atmosphere, including pollution effect and lessening odor
    10 transfer. Based on the lagoon design standards
    11 prescribed in the proposed rules, this affords sufficient
    12 separation and dilution of sufficient odors, are
    13 consistent with other guidelines developed for livestock
    14 manure.
    15 The two design standards referred to in the
    16 lagoon design standard section are supported by the
    17 research and design methods presented in The Rational
    18 Design Standard for Anaerobic Lagoons by Clyde Barth,
    19 Clemson University, which consider appropriate lagoon
    20 design standards to minimize odor production and release.
    21 The design loading rate and volume criteria presented in
    22 the referenced standards are consistent with these
    23 guidelines. The design volumes consisted by Clyde Barth,
    24 would achieve an odor detection frequency of less than 20
    227
    1 percent, establishes for determining a design. Proposed
    2 rules find the determination of the actual separation
    3 distances or livestock management structure and nearest
    4 resident of operated building. Setback distances have
    5 been established to provide for the desired dilution
    6 effect for reaching a neighboring resident. I support
    7 that all setback outer perimeter or nearest corner of
    8 each waste management of livestock facility to the
    9 nearest occupied resident or building. In some upper
    10 management, design waste lagoons are necessary to
    11 conserve and protect the water and air resources.
    12 Several factors must be considered, which include site
    13 selection, design with over handle and exposal systems,
    14 selection of equipment and conditions for land
    15 application and manure and proper management of. These
    16 proposed rules include recommendations towards achieving
    17 these objectives.
    18 I appreciate the opportunity speak in front
    19 of this group and contribute to the development and
    20 adoption of the sound environmental guidelines, design
    21 location of livestock and waste treatment facilities.
    22 Thank you.
    23
    24 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you.
    228
    1 MR. HARRINGTON: I would like at this time to
    2 move for the introduction of the written testimony as an
    3 exhibit, recognizing that the oral testimony deviated
    4 from it in wording, but the written document does include
    5 more complete references than were read in the record.
    6
    7 MS. LOZUK-LAWLES: Thank you. I know you've
    8 already given that to me, so let the record reflect that
    9 the testimony of Dr. Michael Veenhuizen has been marked
    10 as Exhibit Number 83 and entered into the record.
    11 Is that the correct pronunciation?
    12
    13 MR. VEENHUIZEN: Veenhuizen.
    14
    15 MR. HARRINGTON: Can I ask one follow-up
    16 question?
    17
    18 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Yes.
    19
    20 MR. HARRINGTON: It's your opinion that the
    21 rules incorporate practical controls for odor and
    22 available at this time?
    23
    24 MR. VEENHUIZEN: Yes, it would be my opinion
    229
    1 that the rules do specify and include as it relates to
    2 lagoon design and specifications of odor release and odor
    3 control. And that the setback distances, based on the
    4 current technology of livestock facilities are sufficient
    5 and adequate to provide that protection.
    6
    7 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Any questions?
    8
    9 MR. POTTS: Bill Potts again. Doctor, I'd
    10 like to have a little more clarification on your
    11 justification for saying that the setbacks from a
    12 facility should be from that facility to either occupied
    13 home and instead of on the bottom of that property.
    14 Now if I live in Champaign and I am going to
    15 build a bar down the street from the high school, they're
    16 going to measure from the property line, they're not
    17 going to measure from the high school.
    18 Now I'm in the heart land of hogs, I smell
    19 this stuff. I have over 80 documentations that Mr.
    20 Taylor told me to do about a year and a half ago when you
    21 smell this stuff. And I know you say you're adequate,
    22 but you're not living there. You don't smell that 24
    23 hours a day. I have fed hogs myself. I'm not anti-hog,
    24 but I am --
    230
    1 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Just make sure it's a
    2 question.
    3
    4 MR. POTTS: Why don't you take that
    5 measurement from my property line? My farm goes up near
    6 136. My house is a quarter mile from it. I had two
    7 occasions in the last year on property that was sold
    8 across 136, the people bought the property, the hog smell
    9 came in, the house isn't going to be built. Another
    10 property, five acres, spend 30,000, got up there and boy
    11 the sale went to pot.
    12 Now if I want to build up on the highway, let
    13 my son live in my farm house, I'm going to be a lot
    14 closer to that facility which is North of me. I don't
    15 see the reasoning that just because my house is in the
    16 middle of the farm, that setback should not come from the
    17 edge of my farm land. That's all I want to know, and I
    18 think there are a lot of other people that it doesn't
    19 make sense to.
    20
    21 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Doctor, would you like to
    22 address it?
    23
    24 MR. VEENHUIZEN: My opinions regarding
    231
    1 setbacks are based on measurements and related to gas
    2 effusion and odor effusion in relationship to the design
    3 standards specified in the proposed rules and American
    4 technology associated with odor abatement from livestock
    5 facilities. As I stated, it would be -- would not be
    6 possible to state that we were going to have a zero
    7 emissions situation from any municipality.
    8 So looking at practical controls and
    9 practical separation distances, it's my opinion, based on
    10 may experiences and my activities in relationship to odor
    11 transfer and odor abatement, quarter mile and half mile
    12 setbacks that are prescribed are sufficient to provide
    13 that buffer space necessary, recognizing that there will
    14 be times when odors will be generated from these
    15 facilities.
    16
    17 MR. POTTS: Why isn't that from the boundary
    18 line?
    19
    20 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: I think he already
    21 answered that. Thank you, Mr. Potts.
    22
    23 MS. MANNING: Stabilization of lagoons at one
    24 of your hearings, that it takes two years really to
    232
    1 adequately stabilize the lagoon, and during that period
    2 of time that's when the odors are strongest. Would you
    3 comment on that a little bit? I may not be paraphrasing
    4 it but --
    5
    6 MR. VEENHUIZEN: To understand what you're
    7 asking, you say it takes two years to stabilize the
    8 biological activity of the lagoon?
    9
    10 MS. MANNING: I think the testimony was, it
    11 takes two years to really be functioning properly in its
    12 bacteriological capacity, and during that period of time,
    13 that's when the odor is filling up, when it was coming to
    14 life, two year duration, that's when the odor was
    15 strongest as well?
    16
    17 MR. VEENHUIZEN: That's one of the reasons I
    18 brought to the attention of appropriate start up and
    19 filling criterias, in that it's very critical to provide
    20 mental treatment volume, which is based on achieving that
    21 dilution on volume necessary to promote the treatment.
    22 And so it's been my experience, and the research and data
    23 collected on lagoon start up is -- start up is a very
    24 critical time, but it can be controlled. The odor
    233
    1 release will be minimal to very little, if you follow a
    2 start up criteria of having minimum treatment volume,
    3 which is a design specified in the practice.
    4 Now if you were starting with criteria, which
    5 is typically been used in administrative and design
    6 yields in a number of years, half or 16 percent of that
    7 design volume, there could be a potential for those
    8 kinds of odors to be generated. If you follow criteria
    9 of having that in place, then your odor release will be
    10 minimal, if not negligently.
    11
    12 MS. MANNING: Are those all filed? They're
    13 really not?
    14
    15 MR. VEENHUIZEN: The start up criteria are
    16 not in there. In the proposed rules, start up volume of
    17 60 percent of the design depth. And I offer a
    18 clarification, this may be in excess of the design depth
    19 for which would be less than a design depth or less than
    20 design volume, which would not be beneficial to the start
    21 up and to the odor release from that facility. So there
    22 are controls basically, simply put, if you have in place
    23 the minimum design before manure is added will eliminate
    24 any concerns over odor release.
    234
    1 MS. MANNING: You are familiar with NRCS
    2 document on odor as well? There's one of the numbers
    3 specifically on --
    4
    5 MR. VEENHUIZEN: Right.
    6
    7 MS. MANNING: I don't believe it's one of the
    8 documents, but it has been brought to your attention of
    9 these proceedings, but I want to -- can you give us the
    10 ASAE document and perhaps proceeding in these rules?
    11
    12 MR. VEENHUIZEN: Sure. It is referenced by
    13 title in the Engineering Practice 403.2, and it deals
    14 with best management practices and related to minimizing
    15 and reducing odor. So it's addressing siting locations;
    16 it addresses ventilation, air changes. It addresses the
    17 kind of good management or best management practices that
    18 would result in minimal or reduced odor release from
    19 livestock production facilities.
    20
    21 MS. MANNING: Thank you.
    22
    23 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Board member Meyer.
    24
    235
    1 MR. MEYER: Thank you, madam Chairman. I
    2 have several questions.
    3 Your presentation is silent on question of
    4 gas collection. Is gas collection technically feasible?
    5
    6 MR. VEENHUIZEN: The question is, is gas
    7 collection technically feasible. There are gases
    8 released from the biological break down of organic waste.
    9 Livestock manure qualifies as one of those. The
    10 environmental parameters around the volume of gas
    11 generated is very critical to how much gases will be
    12 generated in a climate, such as Illinois, having such
    13 seasonal differences or extremes. The gas released from
    14 an earth structure, an earth structure with a cover on
    15 it, would be quite minimal during a large portion of the
    16 year. And so the case associated with covering a storage
    17 for gas release may not be returned by the amount of gas
    18 generated. And the Oklahoma study and North Carolina
    19 studies with gas collection from earthen structures has
    20 shown some promise relative to the temperatures and
    21 environmental conditions that they enjoy. So it is
    22 technically feasible to collect the gas. The question is
    23 whether it's economically viable to collect the gas.
    24
    236
    1 MR. MEYER: Would you care to furnish us some
    2 information on your position on collecting gas in
    3 Illinois?
    4
    5 MR. VEENHUIZEN: My feeling on collecting gas
    6 from a livestock production unit, it is one of -- I will
    7 categorize it as the use of anaerobic digestive type
    8 reference to Oklahoma type work have been used with
    9 earthen base and covers. There are anaerobic digesters
    10 which are high energy and high maintenance, and input
    11 type systems that are technically feasible for the use of
    12 collecting gas and creating an energy source. That the
    13 question that faces our industry is related to the
    14 implementation of that technology as one of the tools
    15 associated with waste management systems. And so the
    16 technology is there but the economic liability and the
    17 management level is afforded, that's not really lended
    18 itself to be quickly attached to our industry.
    19
    20 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Board member Meyer, do
    21 you have any further questions?
    22
    23 MR. MEYER: Yes.
    24
    237
    1 MR. VEENHUIZEN: A follow-up to that is, I
    2 can offer a couple references related to the application
    3 of anaerobic digestion to agriculture production to the
    4 board.
    5
    6 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: In written comments
    7 later?
    8
    9 MR. VEENHUIZEN: Written comments or
    10 reference papers detailing what is involved in anaerobic
    11 digest.
    12
    13 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: That would be very nice.
    14 Before February 14th?
    15
    16 MR. VEENHUIZEN: Yes.
    17
    18 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Board member Meyer.
    19
    20 MR. MEYER: Would you agree with the
    21 statement that if you collect all the gas, that you
    22 substantially eliminate the odor problem?
    23
    24 MR. VEENHUIZEN: I would agree with the
    238
    1 statement that if you have the structures in place to
    2 collect the gas, that you're also going to collect the
    3 volatile emissions that are associated with the odors.
    4 And if you're able to use that gas as an energy source,
    5 you will minimize or reduce the odor release from that
    6 storage system.
    7 And as a follow-up to that, I would like to
    8 point out that in consideration to the setback distances,
    9 I have also looked at and have see evaluated there
    10 suitable as it relates to the livestock facilities as
    11 well as the line up application requirements.
    12
    13 MR. MEYER: Would you be willing to factor
    14 into some considerations for environment control in your
    15 analysis of the collecting gas?
    16
    17 MR. VEENHUIZEN: I can provide you some basic
    18 economic costs with the use of anaerobic digesters versus
    19 use of the well documented design standards for plumes
    20 that are shown in your proposed rules.
    21
    22 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you. Board member
    23 Meyer, are you finished?
    24
    239
    1 MR. MEYER: No.
    2
    3 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: I'm sorry.
    4
    5 MR. MEYER: I found it difficult in searching
    6 for anything that's been written on the subject, and
    7 haven't been able to obtain figures of which they ask
    8 each generous. Would you be willing to furnish the
    9 committee with your estimate of the gas that is --
    10
    11 MR. VEENHUIZEN: Data available would be
    12 related to the implement of normal digestive systems,
    13 which I would like to make clear is a -- in fact, a
    14 higher level technology adoption than the anaerobic
    15 produced standards we discussed in the proposed rules.
    16 Yes, I can provide the board with those types
    17 of performance numbers associated with anaerobic
    18 digesting.
    19
    20 MR. MEYER: Thank you.
    21
    22 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: We've gone over 10
    23 minutes. Mr. Girard.
    24
    240
    1 MR. GIRARD: In your experience, do most of
    2 the odor problems come from the operation -- the proper
    3 operation of a lagoon or field application of the waste
    4 after its been stabilized in the lagoon?
    5
    6 MR. VEENHUIZEN: My experience, the two
    7 activities that you outlined are low odor emission and
    8 activities. And a more general response to that
    9 application of manures typically will have a higher odor
    10 release than the odors generated from a treatment or
    11 storage. And as I make that statement, I refer to the
    12 fact, how do we choose to land pipe manures and the
    13 reference to injection in a corporation are very
    14 important features for plain application manures.
    15 Recognizing a sense of the areas, this would be
    16 recommended or encouraged. The significance of that is,
    17 odor release units form a corporation, or ejection will
    18 be up to 10 times lower than surface application.
    19
    20 MR. GIRARD: And my initial question is: If
    21 you have an anaerobic digester system which is designed
    22 to collect the gas, how would you dispose of the
    23 remanence, the waste that was left afterwards?
    24
    241
    1 MR. VEENHUIZEN: Best way to dispose of it is
    2 land application, that neutralizes the nutrient.
    3
    4 MR. GIRARD: Would there still be low odor
    5 associated with that?
    6
    7 MR. VEENHUIZEN: There would be less odor
    8 associated with that. With any treatment -- successfully
    9 managed designed treatment system, you're going to
    10 stabilize the waste. In the anaerobic design we have, or
    11 that's proposed in your rules, the stabilized waste water
    12 would have minimal or no odor release from land
    13 application. It could be irrigated with little risk of
    14 no odor release. Effluent and organic mass involved in
    15 that, so there would be a reduced odor protection,
    16 stabilize the waste and provide with less noxious
    17 material for disposal or for utilization.
    18
    19 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Mr. Rao.
    20
    21 MR. RAO: Anand Rao from the Illinios
    22 Pollution Control Board. You know you talking about
    23 anaerobic digesters, do these digest or can they be
    24 operated as a vast treatment?
    242
    1 MR. VEENHUIZEN: They would require some type
    2 of a -- type of continuous loading. They're even more
    3 sensitive to loading and application than the anaerobic
    4 lagoon that you're familiar with from the earth basis.
    5 They need a continuous feed. They are sensitive and
    6 easily put out of balance. That's part of the basis for
    7 my comments relative to a higher level of management and
    8 control. Because we add technology to this, we increase
    9 the requirements of management control on these
    10 structures.
    11
    12 MR. RAO: Okay. Thank you.
    13
    14 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Mr. Feinen.
    15
    16 MR. FEINEN: The first question is odor
    17 controls. I think you answered some of the questions Ms.
    18 Manning asked. Did you think multiple flushing or
    19 increased flushing of a facility would increase odor
    20 control?
    21
    22 MR. VEENHUIZEN: It has been demonstrated
    23 that what I refer to as a recharge flush or recharge
    24 gutter type system, where you're using a large volume of
    243
    1 water in conjunction, and these are typically designed
    2 and work very successfully in organic lagoons, that you
    3 propose in your rules, are returned to the building. To
    4 provide more dilute mixture in the building will reduce
    5 your odor. Odor releases from the building improve the
    6 indoor air quality and improves the sanitization
    7 characteristics of the building.
    8 So in response to your question, yes.
    9 Additional flushing or recharge would have beneficial
    10 effect.
    11
    12 MR. FEINEN: You use the term shelter belts
    13 and setbacks along with natural land forms, actually land
    14 forms and shelter belts to increase the mixing. Can you
    15 describe what shelters belts are that you are referring
    16 to? Is that trees?
    17
    18 MR. VEENHUIZEN: A variety of trees or low
    19 growing bushes and shrubbery. The phenomenon that's
    20 occurring, the odor is moving from the source in a plume
    21 as referred to earlier in some testimony, and the
    22 objective with these land forms and the shelter belts are
    23 ongoing bushes to help break up that plume and enhance
    24 that dissolution effect.
    244
    1 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Chairman Manning.
    2
    3 MR. RAO: I have one more question. Are you
    4 aware of other methods of odor control, like chemical
    5 additives?
    6
    7 MR. VEENHUIZEN: Yes.
    8
    9 MR. RAO: Are they effective? You know, you
    10 have information regarding the use of these other
    11 methods?
    12
    13 MR. VEENHUIZEN: Sure. The question is
    14 relative to the use of other additives or treatment for a
    15 control of odors or releases. There are a wide variety
    16 of products that are promoted for odor control, solid
    17 break down, and currently I would move with some caution
    18 in recommending a particular product.
    19 Iowa State University and North Carolina
    20 State University are currently actively involved in
    21 evaluating several of these products under typical
    22 production parameters, and some of the results coming out
    23 of Iowa State University are very encouraging from the
    24 standpoint that they're seeing 65 to 85 percent reduction
    245
    1 in odor release. The one thing that is very specific or
    2 very obvious in their research results is that a lot of
    3 these products are site specific. And so it is my
    4 recommendation with any land owner or producer, that they
    5 select these on a trial basis to find the one that fits
    6 their particular parameters and site condition.
    7
    8 MR. RAO: Thank you.
    9
    10 MS. MANNING: I had a couple questions. I'm
    11 not an engineer myself; we have some engineering
    12 technical people here, but I don't want to get back to
    13 the office and not know the answer to these questions.
    14 So you refer to on the last page, you're
    15 talking about the Clyde Barth study, which if you have,
    16 we would like to have it in the record.
    17
    18 MR. VEENHUIZEN: Okay, I can provide that to
    19 you.
    20
    21 MS. MANNING: And you refer to the
    22 achievement of an odor detection frequency of less than
    23 20 percent; I don't know what that means. The --
    24
    246
    1 MR. VEENHUIZEN: The parameter set forth in
    2 that particular study, they evaluate different loading
    3 rates of lagoon structures and looked at the frequency or
    4 basically detecting odors over a time line. And the
    5 values that are proposed in the rules would correlate
    6 closely with a -- less than a 20 percent odor detection.
    7 And as a designer and looking at that, recognizing that
    8 it was very difficult to come up with a zero emissions
    9 industry, because less than 20 percent emissions which
    10 occurs typically during the Spring time with the turnover
    11 on these, would be an acceptable design parameter
    12 planning.
    13
    14 MS. MANNING: How do they detect the odor?
    15
    16 MR. VEENHUIZEN: There's a couple different
    17 ways when the work was done with Clyde Barth's work. It
    18 was a device that you would refer to as a syntometer and
    19 syntometer is a plexiglass glass with two charcoal
    20 filters and a couple nasal holes that you make a
    21 subjective measurement based on the operator and the
    22 amount of dilution necessary to dilute the odor or
    23 offensive gas.
    24 Currently, that has evolved to what we call
    247
    1 ophatometry, which is a very sophisticated technique
    2 collecting an air sample, evaluation panel and coming up
    3 with basically motor unit or dilution level in order to
    4 make this detectable.
    5 Also work that is in experimental phases, and
    6 my last review of -- check on this is what we call the
    7 electronic nose; a piece of electronic technology which
    8 is suppose to tell us whether it smells bad or not. That
    9 shows promise but has not been perfected to base any kind
    10 of regulatory or statutory limits on it.
    11
    12 MS. MANNING: The other phrase I have and is
    13 important testimony and we need to understand it, because
    14 I really don't want to have to ask you questions
    15 afterwards when I have to do them in writing. The
    16 sentence, the sludge storage life is typically five to 20
    17 years, what do you mean by sludge storage life?
    18
    19 MR. VEENHUIZEN: I apologize for the
    20 confusion. That refers to, from a design standpoint, how
    21 long you want to go before you need to make remediation
    22 for removing the inert solids and also to deal with this
    23 very thick slurry. From study, the profile on organic
    24 lagoon, there's a very slick -- maybe slick as well as
    248
    1 thick slurry that is not promoting biologic activity and
    2 also an inert earth layer that isn't going to break down.
    3 And so the design numbers that are referenced in this
    4 practice deal with providing a buffer volume, that allows
    5 for a prediction that in five years, if it's a five year
    6 sludge life or in 20 years you start to encroach on this
    7 mineral design quality that is responsible for inert
    8 treatment. After a year period, it may require the land
    9 owner, or two, to actually harvest the sludge from the
    10 lagoon.
    11
    12 MR. THEESFED: Are you married?
    13
    14 MR. VEENHUIZEN: Yes, sir.
    15
    16 MR. THEESFED: Do you have any children?
    17
    18 MR. VEENHUIZEN: I have three children.
    19
    20 MR. THEESFED: Do you feel comfortable enough
    21 that you would like to move your family within a quarter
    22 mile of 12 million gallons of goo?
    23
    24 MR. VEENHUIZEN: If designed to the
    249
    1 specifications in the proposed rules, yes.
    2
    3 MR. THEESFED: Would you like to buy a house?
    4
    5 MR. VEENHUIZEN: Give me the address.
    6
    7 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Doctor Flemal will wrap
    8 this up.
    9
    10 MR. FLEMAL: EP403.2, we don't believe that's
    11 been introduced.
    12
    13 MR. VEENHUIZEN: No one has provided that to
    14 you? I didn't mean to interrupt you. You don't have a
    15 copy?
    16
    17 MR. FLEMAL: That's right.
    18
    19 MR. VEENHUIZEN: I would welcome the
    20 opportunity to provide one.
    21
    22 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Off the record.
    23
    24
    250
    1 (At this time an off-the-record
    2 discussion was had.)
    3
    4 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: I think we have one more
    5 question for Dr. Veenhuizen. Doctor Marlin.
    6
    7 MR. MARLIN: I'm John Marlin with the
    8 Department of Natural Resources. In your opinion, are
    9 lagoon standards recommendations in the proposed
    10 regulation generally consistent with those of the Midwest
    11 Plan?
    12
    13 MR. VEENHUIZEN: Yes.
    14
    15 MR. MARLIN: Okay.
    16
    17 MR. VEENHUIZEN: Yes, Midwest Plan Service
    18 would be consistent with the design standards in the
    19 proposed rules qualification. The numbers are presented
    20 in the fashion that you would not be able to clearly
    21 identify all the design volumes that are specified in the
    22 rules.
    23
    24 MR. MARLIN: In terms of the Livestock Waste
    251
    1 Facilities Handbook, I'm looking at page 2.7 under
    2 control of odors and gases leaving livestock area, and
    3 there's -- one of the first things to do, select a site
    4 where odors will create the fewest problems, locate at
    5 least one-half mile away from neighboring houses. Do you
    6 agree with that statement in relation to the quarter
    7 mile setbacks from residences that you cited from the
    8 county in Iowa and places like that?
    9
    10 MR. VEENHUIZEN: The one-half mile setback
    11 that is referenced in the Midwest Plan Service 18,
    12 Livestock Waste Facilities Handbook, is of the consensus
    13 opinion of several committee members and discussion
    14 relative to what setback should be, would vary from --
    15 anywhere less than a quarter of a mile up to
    16 three-quarters of a mile is a consensus opinion of that
    17 committee. A half mile was suggested for buffing in that
    18 particular handbook. That does not change my opinion
    19 relative to the odor -- transfer odor dispersion from a
    20 lagoon designed to meet the specifications outlined in
    21 your proposed rules.
    22
    23 MR. MARLIN: Thank you.
    24
    252
    1 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Are those all the
    2 questions then? Thank you, Dr. Veenhuizen.
    3
    4 MR. HARRINGTON: I call Jamie Wilright,
    5 please. We're going to do this a little bit by question and
    6 answer. So I'll speak up, and if I can't be heard, somebody
    7 raise their hand and the hearing officer will correct me.
    8
    9 EXAMINATION OF JAMIE WILRIGHT
    10 BY MR. HARRINGTON:
    11
    12 Q Are you the same Jamie Wilright who previously
    13 testified in these proceedings and gave your background
    14 qualifications?
    15 A Yes.
    16 Q Have you had occasion to look at the definitions of
    17 the proposed regulations, particularly the definition relating
    18 to livestock pasture operation?
    19 A Yes, I have.
    20 Q Is this definition clear to you as to what is
    21 encompassed within its meaning as opposed and subject to the
    22 examination provided for in the act?
    23 A It has created some confusion with some producers
    24 in the country.
    253
    1 Q Could you explain that, please?
    2 A The act by statute defines the -- could be defined
    3 feeding operations, and then went further to define what a
    4 pasture operation is. And some of the producers who don't
    5 clearly fit into one or the other definition, that's caused some
    6 confusion with where they are in their particular operations.
    7 A lot of this relates to how calf producers, who
    8 are triangle operations, but through part of their management
    9 and part of their management in feeding, those cattle in the
    10 wintertime or in weaning those calves in the Fall and bringing
    11 those in to certain locations, and the length of time they are
    12 there, as well as some weather occurrences as effected in the
    13 Dakotas this winter, where normally they pasture all winter.
    14 However, with the situation with the weather, those animals --
    15 you know, let's face it, they're not out roaming and able to
    16 eat, are they all of a sudden a confined feeding operation?
    17 There's some confusion there. It was brought to my attention,
    18 and our thoughts were to define by statutes what the confined
    19 feeding operations are. Why do we need to define, draw another
    20 box, what they are not. It seems we're just trying to regulate
    21 the confined feeding operations.
    22 Q Does the language of the proposed definition,
    23 particularly subpart A, referring to crop vegetation, foliage
    24 growth or post residues that are grown in place sustained in the
    254
    1 normal growing season over a substantial portion of the latter
    2 facility contribute to this confusion?
    3 A Yes, it can.
    4 Q In what way?
    5 A The substantial -- what is a substantial portion of
    6 the lot, what happens in the wintertime, what happens in the
    7 weather occurrence when these people are forced into these
    8 situations. I think it's the intent -- what originally started
    9 with the task force and the legislation was to exempt all those
    10 people, but in trying to define that, we may have included or at
    11 some point down the road, depending on who is administering the
    12 rules, may have included some people that we may not want to; it
    13 was not the intent.
    14 Q You worked on the task force. You're also involved
    15 in legislation, is that correct?
    16 A Yes, I did.
    17
    18 MR. HARRINGTON: Those are the only questions
    19 we have.
    20
    21 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Any questions for Mr.
    22 Wilright? Okay.
    23
    24 MS. MANNING: We've been talking about the
    255
    1 Livestock Facilities Task Force. I don't believe we have
    2 the task force report into evidence at all yet, and I
    3 think it's important we do. In fact, we have the
    4 minority report in evidence, and I thought I would let
    5 you know that.
    6
    7 MR. HARRINGTON: We appreciate the comment,
    8 and we'll do so.
    9
    10 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you. And we'll now
    11 continue with the testimony of Mr. Fisher.
    12
    13 MR. FISHER: My name is Harvey Fisher. My
    14 family has raised crops on our 144 acre farm since we
    15 bought it in 1962. We've also raised hogs on and off
    16 during that time. The farm is located in Woodford
    17 County. I do not have any documentation, but I would bet
    18 that our land has more terraces and waterways per acre
    19 than any other farm in the county. Dad was a firm
    20 believer in soil conservation. When he passed away more
    21 than a year ago, my mother became responsible for the
    22 land. She has mentioned that she would like to see less
    23 artificial fertilizer used to grow crops. So she
    24 supported my idea of building a finishing hog facility so
    256
    1 we could use the manure as fertilizer and make the land
    2 more valuable.
    3 Since the beginning of the project, I have
    4 wanted to do things right. My original plans for the
    5 facility were to begin with one 1200 head finishing unit
    6 and to add a second 1200 head finishing unit in the
    7 future. One building has the capacity for 480 animal
    8 units. When I compare this to other producers, I think
    9 it's at least average and probably even small.
    10 I planned on using a two stage lagoon for two
    11 reasons: The first reason is to capture the solids and
    12 allow the water to flow to the second stage. This water
    13 would have fewer pathogens and be used to recycle in the
    14 flush system of the building. The second reason I chose
    15 a two stage lagoon was to reduce odors. Although each
    16 person may disagree on how strong odor is, I believe that
    17 anyone who walks into or lives around a building with
    18 fans running constantly and manure that's been building
    19 up in pits for months, can tell the difference between
    20 this and a well managed lagoon. The pits would smell
    21 much stronger than the lagoon. A flush system building
    22 and lagoon provide a much improved environment for the
    23 animals and the workers, not to mention your neighbors.
    24 I'm afraid that this act will encourage more builders to
    257
    1 provide deep pits, which I believe smell much stronger,
    2 unless the regulations give the Department of Agriculture
    3 the flexibility to alter design requirements as the act
    4 states.
    5 As I mentioned earlier, I wanted to do things
    6 right from the beginning. I contacted the Natural
    7 Resources Conservation Service in our county to take soil
    8 borings and assist with the design of a two stage lagoon
    9 that would be above ground. The technical engineer for
    10 the region of the NRCS took the soil samples on September
    11 6th, and said the plans would take two to three months to
    12 draw up. By early October, NRCS said the site was
    13 approved for the two stage lagoon, but the plans were not
    14 yet drawn up.
    15 Since NRCS said the site was approved, I
    16 began plans to dig a well and start excavating. By
    17 November 12th, I was excavating for the building. I
    18 already had $70,000 invested in the building. NRCS
    19 called the first week of December, said they could not
    20 design plans for the lagoon because the building would
    21 hold more than 300 animal units. In other words, NRCS
    22 said they would not -- could not assist anyone with more
    23 than 300 animal units. At that point, they said that
    24 they did find some aquifer material in the second -- for
    258
    1 the boring in the second stage lagoon.
    2 Since I already had money invested in the
    3 project, and I still wanted to do the right thing, I
    4 contacted Glacier Environmental, and it's a private firm,
    5 to take soil borings and give their advice on the lagoon
    6 siting. The couple that represented Glacier
    7 Environmental are a geologist and a hydrogeologist. They
    8 verified that alluvium was located in the second stage
    9 lagoon boring. They also recommended that the material
    10 be removed from the lagoon, and that the lagoon be made
    11 deeper, because the glacial till beneath the alluvium
    12 deposit would make a good base for a properly constructed
    13 lagoon. A copy of their letter verifying their findings
    14 and a geologic cross section is attached to this
    15 testimony.
    16 Although I was happy for their advice, I paid
    17 $2,593 for the two borings, and I have another bill on my
    18 desk for approximately $1,700 for engineering and
    19 development fees.
    20 Since receiving Glacier Environmental's
    21 advice, I spoke with another agricultural engineer. He
    22 agrees that the alluvium deposit could be removed by
    23 digging out the deposit to the center of the berm on that
    24 side of the lagoon, then filling in the soil and
    259
    1 recompacting the interior wall.
    2 My plans have changed now to have a single
    3 stage lagoon in the ground. I hope to move ahead
    4 quickly, so I can hope to earn back my investments.
    5 My situation is not unique. That is why I
    6 think it is very important for the Department of
    7 Agriculture be granted the authority in the regulations
    8 to authorize this sort of change in design.
    9 Thank you for letting me testify.
    10
    11 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you, Mr. Fisher.
    12 Would you like to submit those?
    13
    14 MR. FISHER: Yes. I have copies, do you need
    15 more than one?
    16
    17 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: No, one is fine. Let the
    18 record reflect, Mr. Fisher's testimony with attached
    19 exhibit, has been marked as Exhibit number 84.
    20 Are there any questions for Mr. Fisher?
    21 Okay, thank you very much.
    22
    23 MR. HARRINGTON: If you don't deem it
    24 confidential, could you give us some idea of how much
    260
    1 money you already put into this project?
    2
    3 MR. FISHER: Yeah, I've got practically
    4 $70,000 in.
    5
    6 MR. HARRINGTON: Thank you.
    7
    8 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Mr. Goetsch.
    9
    10 MR. GOETSCH: You were present this morning
    11 when the Department gave its proposal to modify the
    12 interior slope of the berm or interior berm slope to not
    13 more than two to one. Do you have any opinion as to how
    14 that might effect your facility or whether you would be
    15 in favor of that change?
    16
    17 MR. FISHER: Yeah, I think it would be real
    18 appropriate, since as close as we can calculate, cutting
    19 down the berm on the inside would lose approximately 50
    20 percent less ground. I mean, 50 percent less ground that
    21 I would have to take out of production for other crops.
    22 And being that the lagoon would be in the ground, it's
    23 not going to be a built up berm, it should provide plenty
    24 of strength. I think it would be a good savings of the
    261
    1 land that I would have to use.
    2
    3 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Mr. Boruff.
    4
    5 MR. BORUFF: If I could ask a question as it
    6 pertains to another cost that you may incur as you're
    7 looking at the design of this synthetic liner, and do you
    8 have any cost which you might have estimated which you
    9 care to share with the board?
    10
    11 MR. FISHER: Yeah, one of the plans we looked
    12 at was installing a synthetic liner, and the engineer
    13 estimated between 40 and $50,000, which again would be
    14 another 25 percent of what the project is going to cost.
    15
    16 MR. BORUFF: Could you share with us the
    17 proximate dimensions you're considering?
    18
    19 MR. FISHER: 200 by 200, top to top on the
    20 berm. Some 272,000 cubic feet.
    21
    22 MR. BORUFF: Thank you.
    23
    24 MR. FISHER: Plus two foot freeboard on
    262
    1 there, so actually it's a little bigger.
    2
    3 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Any further questions?
    4 All right. Thank you.
    5
    6 MS. MANNING: Did the EPA have any questions?
    7
    8 MR. WARRINGTON: No.
    9
    10 MR. HARRINGTON: Could we just present some
    11 documents we promised the board earlier?
    12
    13 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Is it in reference to Mr.
    14 Fisher?
    15
    16 MR. TABOR: Documents that you requested at
    17 the Mt. Vernon hearing.
    18
    19 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: And you're leaving now?
    20
    21 MR. HARRINGTON: No, we can wait.
    22
    23 (Witness sworn.)
    24
    263
    1 MR. THEESFED: I appreciate your people
    2 spending all this time on this today. I'm here because
    3 I'm concerned as a resident, as a foster parent, as a
    4 volunteer fire chief about the setbacks and the size of
    5 the lagoons. I'm about to have a lagoon a quarter mile
    6 from my home, but according to all the experts today,
    7 assured me that it won't be any problem.
    8 I have four children of my own, we sometimes
    9 care up to four more foster children. The day those
    10 assurances go wrong, I'll send the kids over to your
    11 house when they want to go outside and play.
    12 There are no provisions for any kind of
    13 compensation for emergency response units, providing that
    14 this lagoon should have any problems, or equipment loss
    15 or anything else. Illinois statutes right now for
    16 hazardous materials will reimburse rural fire departments
    17 or paid departments for any kind of equipment that's lost
    18 on a call for hazardous material, and I think something
    19 should be considered about being done for that too; some
    20 kind of response, some kind of rescues because any kind
    21 of equipment that's going to be used is going to be
    22 considered contaminated.
    23 I hope the judgment of the board and people
    24 here today will work out so that they can come to my
    264
    1 house and drink a glass of water out of my water facet
    2 and we can sit on the patio and enjoy the breeze.
    3
    4 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Were there any questions
    5 for Mr. Theesfed? Okay. Thank you very much for your
    6 testimony.
    7 Now Loraine.
    8
    9 (Witness sworn.)
    10
    11 MS. MARTOGLIO: I'm Loraine Martoglio and I
    12 live at 16224 North 97 East Road, Oakwood, Illinois. I
    13 have lived there for 49 years on two and a half acres.
    14 I'm 81 years old. I'm going to try to put nine years of
    15 frustration in a short speech.
    16 My problem is Parks Pig Palace located less
    17 than an eighth of a mile from my house. He owns 15 to 20
    18 acres and proceeded to build about four structures on the
    19 same, and under the Grandfather Law, he can do as he
    20 pleases. At one time, he had hog manure at least six
    21 inches deep on the acre.
    22 I complained to Mr. Steve Laser at the
    23 Vermilion County Health Department, as the wells in the
    24 neighborhood drain from 10 to 40 foot deep. I was told
    265
    1 it wasn't a health problem but agriculture. Then he
    2 began burying his dead hogs. They told me that it was
    3 miserable for a farmer to bury dead hogs on his property.
    4 We finally contacted Mr. Carl Emic in the Springfield
    5 Dead Animal Control. He came down, made them dig some of
    6 the dead hogs up and they were lying in the ground water.
    7 He took pictures and told them never to do that again.
    8 But several months later he buried hogs, then he decided
    9 he wanted them in a different place. He took a Bobcat
    10 with dead hogs over it like wet noodles, took them to a
    11 hole in the ground and he set fire to them. We had a
    12 video of that. Mr. Emic took him to court and he was
    13 fined $212. He didn't show up, just his lawyer. We were
    14 told, as he had pleaded guilty, the next time could be
    15 worse.
    16 Up to now, there's been no next time. He has
    17 dug holes since then. He continues to stock pile manure
    18 along the entire back of his building at least five to
    19 six feet tall and they fall over into the field.
    20 Over Labor Day last year at night, they set
    21 more hogs on fire. We again called Springfield and
    22 talked to Mr. Holstein. I asked Mr. Holstein pointblank
    23 if he called them each time he came. By the time he got
    24 there, they covered up the funeral parlor and manicured
    266
    1 the manure pile like they had never done before. Mr.
    2 Emic arrived two days later and contacted the rendering
    3 plant; they were so rotted, they wouldn't take these
    4 hogs.
    5 I went to two county board meetings. This
    6 company hauls in hogs from Florida, North Carolina,
    7 Kentucky, et cetera. He has about a dozen dead hogs
    8 every time a trucker arrives. These hogs are never
    9 inspected to find out what killed them. My son had hogs
    10 at one time and they carried air syphilis and
    11 Trichomonas which effect the intestine and muscle. We
    12 had a man die from this several years ago. The
    13 Vermilion County Health Officer and Illinois Public
    14 Health Department were advised of this hog operation.
    15 Mr. Emic told them they had already surprised Mr. Quo of
    16 dead hogs to the amount of acreage. They asked Mr.
    17 Lacker of the county board if he could do anything, he
    18 said no, just fine them. I thought that what was -- why
    19 make laws when they didn't obey them. They were to be
    20 compacted with six inches of soil. From the vultures
    21 sitting on top of the pile, I knew they weren't digging
    22 six inches for their meal.
    23 Law says manure is to be put on impermeable
    24 material when stacked, and another is to be incorporated
    267
    1 the same day. The upshot of the board meeting, it could
    2 do nothing without zoning on it. I had two books of
    3 rules about a half inch thick, and regulations for a hog
    4 farm and all this, and I said, if you can't enforce
    5 these, how do you expect to enforce zoning laws. If you
    6 have all these laws on the book that you people talked
    7 about today and you're trying to enforce them and we
    8 don't have anybody to enforce them, what is our next --
    9 what do we do.
    10 I've got a stack of letters that high that
    11 are written to Springfield, to Mr. Emic, Mr. Austin, Dr.
    12 McDonald. And the last tame I called Mr. Austin that one
    13 time, Mr. Emic told him to get a refrigerator unit to put
    14 the dead hogs in till they collect them. This unit sat
    15 there with the doors open for two weeks. I called Mr.
    16 Austin, he said well, you don't know how lucky you're
    17 that he's got that refrigerated unit. He's sitting in
    18 Springfield and telling me I'm lucky. So every once in
    19 awhile he has a dead hog lying out front. We've seen
    20 neighborhood dogs feeding on them. One day they had a
    21 Bobcat out trying to pick up crippled hogs in the bucket
    22 and the hogs kept falling out; they used a Bobcat to mash
    23 them and throw them over.
    24 A driver tells us they have rats as big as
    268
    1 cats in their feed bin. Springfield tells me they have
    2 no vermin laws for this. My county board member tells me
    3 I'm fighting agriculture and can't win. The members tell
    4 me I'm fighting money. I feel as an American citizen, I
    5 have as much right as these people.
    6 My husband and I worked until 62 and put
    7 three boys through college. And after my husband's death
    8 nine years ago, I find my golden years ending up in a
    9 pile of manure. The Mr. Parks says it's only bedding.
    10 If it looks like manure and smells like manure, I say
    11 it's manure.
    12 Thank you for letting me vent this, and if
    13 you can recommend somebody who will enforce your laws, I
    14 would appreciate it.
    15
    16 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Loraine, do you want to
    17 enter those pictures?
    18
    19 MS. MARTOGLIO: Yes, I do. I spent hundreds
    20 of dollars on pictures. And this is from North Carolina.
    21
    22 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Are there any questions
    23 for the witness? Okay, thank you.
    24 I will admit the article from North Carolina,
    269
    1 How Hog Waste Wrecked a Stream, as Exhibit number 85.
    2 And these pictures, Loraine, did you take
    3 these pictures?
    4
    5 MS. MARTOGLIO: Yes, I did. Mr. Emic told me
    6 to take them and work on the back, so I'm trying to
    7 comply with that.
    8
    9 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: What we'll do then is
    10 mark the first two pictures that are on -- just two
    11 pictures on this board, we'll mark that as Exhibit Number
    12 85 -- excuse me, 86.
    13
    14 MS. MARTOGLIO: Invite the members down to
    15 visit this place but it's too late now.
    16
    17 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: And we'll mark the photo
    18 that is just one single photo on the cardboard as Exhibit
    19 Number 87.
    20 And we'll mark the large board with all the
    21 photos as Exhibit Number 88 and enter them into the
    22 record.
    23
    24 MS. MARTOGLIO: It's about nine years of
    270
    1 frustration.
    2
    3 MS. MANNING: Who is Mr. Emic again?
    4
    5 MS. MARTOGLIO: He's in the Dead Animal
    6 Control, and he was really helping us and then all of a
    7 sudden his boss came to down and they sat in my living
    8 room -- well, I better not go into that.
    9
    10 MS. MANNING: Who is Mr. Austin?
    11
    12 MS. MARTOGLIO: He's Mr. Emic's boss.
    13
    14 MS. MANNING: But you don't know what
    15 department?
    16
    17 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Mr. Boruff.
    18
    19 MS. MARTOGLIO: If I had known him sooner, I
    20 would have gotten on him.
    21
    22 MR. BORUFF: I'm sorry?
    23
    24 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: She said she wished she
    271
    1 had known you earlier, she would have got on you.
    2
    3 MR. BORUFF: Mr. Emic and Mr. Jim Austin are
    4 both employees of the Illinois Department of Agriculture,
    5 worked in the Animal Welfare. So for the activities
    6 regarding Animal Welfare and Illinois Dead Animal
    7 Disposal Act, both of those gentlemen report to me. So
    8 I'll make sure on Monday to look into your file. I may
    9 want to ask you some particulars, in terms of names and
    10 addresses.
    11
    12 MS. MARTOGLIO: I would be glad to furnish
    13 them.
    14
    15 MS. TIPSORD: You claim that they found dead
    16 pigs in the ground water?
    17
    18 MS. MARTOGLIO: Yes.
    19
    20 MS. TIPSORD: Was there any indication that
    21 the ground water itself had been contaminated by that?
    22
    23 MS. MARTOGLIO: I don't know. Mr. Emic took
    24 pictures of that; he thought it was worthy, and he told
    272
    1 them not to do it again. But it takes like two days for
    2 Mr. Emic to get there, and by that time they go out and
    3 spray the maggots and the whole bit. We've seen -- every
    4 time they bring a truck in, they have at least a dozen
    5 dead hogs, which they put in a little pen there and you
    6 can see them above the gate. They did put a gate up so
    7 we couldn't see so well.
    8
    9 MS. TIPSORD: And your drinking water is from
    10 a well?
    11
    12 MS. MARTOGLIO: Well, I buy mine. I buy all
    13 my drinking and cooking water; I don't trust them.
    14
    15 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Okay. No further
    16 questions. Thank you for your testimony.
    17 And now Lynn McLinden.
    18
    19 (Witness sworn.)
    20
    21 MR. MCLINDEN: First, let me say, I only
    22 started following this whole issue through my local
    23 newspaper coverage beginning about a month ago, when they
    24 first started reporting on a proposed Heartland Pork
    273
    1 Enterprise for Veedersburg, near Veedersburg, Indiana
    2 that caught my attention, because I live about 35 miles
    3 from there. And it appeared that Indiana, the county
    4 where Veedersburg is, has no zoning. And so the poor
    5 folks in the area who would be impacted with very little
    6 recourse, except to mobilize public pressure through
    7 their elected representative to exert some muscle or
    8 whatever possible. And through that route, ultimately
    9 Heartland Pork Enterprise did withdraw their application
    10 for that facility. But my understanding is, they have
    11 the right to resubmit at any future time. So I expect
    12 eventually that might occur.
    13 All right, so that raised my antenna. And
    14 just about a week or two after that, it appeared that
    15 near Rankin, which is the far Northwest corner of
    16 Vermilion County where I live, Heartland Pork Enterprises
    17 has signed a purchase offer contingent upon gaining a
    18 permit approved by your board to build this sort of
    19 mega-farm for large scale hog confinement. And subject
    20 it that board approval of the permit, my understanding is
    21 the sale of 160 acres will go through Hoopston. An
    22 attorney who only recently bought the land, apparently
    23 did a quick flip. So that detail may or may not interest
    24 you.
    274
    1 I have subsequently started paying more
    2 attention to the newspaper coverage. It appears --
    3 somewhere I read recently that the Heartland Pork
    4 Enterprise Company is based in Alden, Iowa. Apparently
    5 an Iowa corporation which is apparently gotten a lot of
    6 going facilities in operation already in Illinois. We've
    7 heard from Bill Emmett in McLean County, and evidently
    8 there's one near Paris, Illinois, as well as some in
    9 Indian and probably other states. So they're a pretty
    10 big concern. I suspect they have a lot of resources to
    11 try to influence the regulation process. I'm not -- I'm
    12 pretty naive but not totally naive. And I understand
    13 that there's money involved in the pork industry, and
    14 Illinois does want to maintain, I suppose, a viable pork
    15 industry, but I would suggest that that not be the total
    16 deciding factor in the following sense. If you take the
    17 several hundred million dollars or whatever they
    18 estimate the pork industry generates each year in
    19 Illinois and divide that by the total economic activity
    20 in Illinois each year, I think you have a pretty small
    21 factor. So I don't think the economic impact and
    22 associated low level jobs that would be produced in
    23 these, I don't think that should be a prominent factor in
    24 this overall issue.
    275
    1 It appears to me what we're facing is a new
    2 type of economic entity in these mega-farm confinement,
    3 livestock confinement operations. And this new type of
    4 economic entity, I've been trying to think, how would I
    5 best formulate a word for it, and the best I can come up
    6 with is factory. Now we normally think of factory as
    7 producing intimate objects, but this happens to be a
    8 biologic factory, public use and public policy is
    9 equipped to deal with this juggernaut that is already
    10 steam rolling the public. And I use stark language I
    11 realize, but that's effectively how I see the situation
    12 now. We're facing a well organized aggressive lobbying
    13 effort of a fairly narrow economic interest group, which
    14 is running circles around the public's welfare.
    15 And it looks to me, I was kind of not paying
    16 attention last Winter, last Spring, when the Illinois
    17 Assembly passed this law, and I realize now you folks
    18 apparently are stuck with a structure in the law which
    19 you're faced with implementing through the regulations
    20 that you adopt. I realize that's not -- doesn't give
    21 you a whole lot of choice; maybe you would like more,
    22 maybe less, but it does kind of restrict your options,
    23 I'm very well aware.
    24 Know my feeling as a naive but interested
    276
    1 public citizen, what can we do at this point. And I'm
    2 really at a loss. I heard a lot of interesting technical
    3 detail from a variety of witnesses today and I learned a
    4 lot. And the details of individual technicalities that
    5 really I'm not equipped to critique. It would take a lot
    6 of study for me to form an opinion on those particulars.
    7 This is a new type of economic entity existing. Public
    8 policy is not yet equipped to protect the public interest
    9 as opposed to responding to the pressures exerted by the
    10 narrow economic lobbying groups. So there's a basic
    11 problem, and all I can say is, I would second the
    12 eloquent comments by Bill Emmett earlier this afternoon,
    13 we need industrial strength regulation. The best,
    14 apparently, that we can do under these circumstances, is
    15 to hope that you folks will come through with as tough
    16 and meaningful a regulation to kind of hold the fort
    17 until we can do better. Maybe through some follow a long
    18 legislation in Springfield.
    19 Thank you very much.
    20
    21 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you, Mr. McLinden.
    22
    23 MR. FISHER: My facility would produce
    24 approximately 3,000 pigs a year and maybe add 20 percent
    277
    1 to my income, would you consider that a hog factory?
    2
    3 MR. MCLINDEN: Approximately how many pigs?
    4
    5 MR. FISHER: Approximately 3,000.
    6
    7 MR. MCLINDEN: How many would be on site at
    8 one time?
    9
    10 MR. FISHER: 1,200. Would you consider that
    11 a hog factory?
    12
    13 MR. MCLINDEN: I heard one of the
    14 definitions, the figure 800 in the past as what's
    15 considered large, and what's proposed in Rankin is 3,200.
    16 Now you're talking about 1,200, so I guess between 800
    17 and 3,200, that sounds like it's fairly small. But I
    18 heard of other locations, eight or 9,000.
    19
    20 MR. FISHER: You propose to limit corporate
    21 operations from moving into the state, which at this
    22 point it's really hurt my operation. I mean, I spent
    23 nearly a thousand dollars which I wasn't planning on
    24 spending, and it's not resolved yet, and I'm not a
    278
    1 corporate operation.
    2
    3 MR. MCLINDEN: Okay, I would say -- my gut
    4 instinct is, you're probably a relatively small player in
    5 this current situation.
    6
    7 MR. FISHER: What would you propose?
    8
    9 MR. MCLINDEN: I don't think the rules should
    10 treat all the players, from largest to smallest,
    11 necessarily the same. My own instinct, it might be quite
    12 appropriate to develop a tier system based on the total
    13 number of hogs in the facility at a given time as a basis
    14 for defining categories, and then adopting regulations
    15 that treat the really mega operations with a somewhat
    16 more stringent oversight philosophy than the small family
    17 guy, which I would be inclined to think that you seem
    18 like that's where you would fit.
    19 Now let me mention also, I forgot earlier,
    20 Heartland Pork Enterprises seems to be based in Alden,
    21 Iowa, and I read -- did I already say this, that Iowa has
    22 apparently either a moratorium or an outright ban on
    23 additional huge livestock confinement operations. I'm
    24 not sure if that's actually a fact or not, but one of the
    279
    1 witnesses earlier has provided the committee or the board
    2 with what they described as a summary of these various
    3 state laws, including Iowa. I would suggest that this be
    4 looked into very carefully, if in fact they do have a
    5 moratorium or outright ban. I suggest that in the -- in
    6 the interest of saving ourselves from having to do --
    7 placate a lot of effort and reinvent the wheel, I would
    8 think the pork industry in Iowa has at least as much
    9 influence there as the pork industry does in Illinois.
    10 In that setting, if in true climate the Iowa political
    11 situation has found it possible to take such stern
    12 measures as a moratorium or outright ban, it suggestions
    13 to me there's some real problems with the huge operation,
    14 the huge scale operation, that perhaps we really ought to
    15 look carefully at and adopt regulations that will be
    16 responsible.
    17
    18 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you. Are there any
    19 questions?
    20
    21 MS. MANNING: You talked about a tiered
    22 approach. Have you given any thought of what your tiered
    23 approach would be?
    24
    280
    1 MR. MCLINDEN: I don't yet have a good enough
    2 feeling, but I do think it might be something to help
    3 differentiate between the small guy and the big out of
    4 state corporation.
    5
    6 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Okay. Thank you.
    7 Is there anyone else here that wanted to give
    8 testimony? Okay.
    9
    10 (Witness sworn.)
    11
    12 MS. CAMBRIN: Good evening. My name is Kim
    13 Cambrin, and I live at 2736 East 3700 North Road in
    14 Rankin, Illinois. I never thought I'd ever be here.
    15 Three weeks ago, I sat in my living room doing a thousand
    16 piece jigsaw puzzle and had absolutely no idea what a
    17 large hog confinement facility was all about. I do now.
    18 And there's a lot that I don't know yet either.
    19 One of the things that I'd like to tell the
    20 board is, once a community finds out about a facility
    21 like this coming into their area, there's this very small
    22 window of time to educate yourselves. And the amount of
    23 information that you have to take in and digest and
    24 understand are not only news articles but very technical,
    281
    1 you know, information that would take me personally a
    2 long time to learn and understand. That's one of reasons
    3 why I'm here today before you is, because we do have a
    4 very small window of time. I feel that this board is the
    5 voice of people like me, that, you know, can't cram all
    6 this in
    in such a short period of time.
    7 I'll tell you that I first found out about
    8 this from a news article, not even one of my neighbors.
    9 And the only reason he found out about it was, he saw a
    10
    backhoe going down his road, which was very unusual for
    11 that time of year. So then we started asking questions.
    12 Well, this is how we found out about Heartland Pork
    13 Enterprises coming into our neighborhood. We had to
    14 organize very shortly a meeting so that we could let
    15 every one hear our concerns. There were too many people
    16 talking in little groups, so we did -- we had a meeting
    17 last Tuesday. We also invited the company to come and
    18 speak, because we wanted to hear the good, you know, and
    19 the bad. We wanted to hear everything so that we could
    20 make an informed decision on our feelings and whether we
    21 wanted this in our backyards. And I have to honestly
    22 tell you that after the meeting, I don't want it in my
    23 backyard.
    24 I don't believe that the representatives that
    282
    1 they sent were ready for us; were ready for our
    2 questions. I think the most disturbing thing to me was
    3 when we talked about lagoons and possibly putting in
    4 monitoring wells around that lagoon to monitor leakage
    5 for pollution. The representatives were asked if it
    6 would make the town feel better if they went above and
    7 beyond what was strictly required of them, if they would
    8 be willing to do that; the answer was no. Just on that,
    9 I'm sorry.
    10 I would like to submit -- this is from the
    11 Village of
    Rankin, it's a resolution that was written up
    12 concerning this issue and how the town feels about it. I
    13 would also like to submit to you and just read a little
    14 bit to you, which is a petition that has been signed by
    15 the residents and the area residents. We, the
    16 undersigned areas are concerned with the quality of life
    17 in and around the Village of
    Rankin, Illinois, population
    18 619, Butler Township, Vermilion County, as well as
    19 surrounding county neighbors. Most immediately, our
    20 concern is with the proposed confinement swine operation
    21 by Heartland Pork Enterprises of
    Alen, Iowa, located
    22 approximately two miles Southwest of
    Rankin. We're in no
    23 way attacking our own local family owned, small scale
    24 livestock operations; rather, we're extremely concerned
    283
    1 about the ground water contamination. Air pollution,
    2 adverse economic impacts, road damage and potential
    3 health problems presented by the proposed large scale
    4 industry's
    reconfinement building of Heartland Pork
    5 Enterprises. We're especially concerned -- are concerned
    6 that such an industry should be allowed to locate in
    7 Vermilion County would destroy the value salability of
    8 our land, home, our major resource. We request the
    9 Pollution Control Board to set standards that protect our
    10 environment and our quality of life. I have 10 sheets at
    11 15 per sheet that we would like to submit to you from the
    12 area residents.
    13 I would like to tell you, if there's any
    14 way -- I think there should be some way a community
    15 should know well in advance of this type of
    16 nontraditional farming coming into your communities.
    17 Three weeks, and that's not enough time for us to
    18 understand everything that's going on. It's not enough
    19 time.
    20
    21 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you very much. Let
    22 the record reflect the Resolution 221 from the Village of
    23
    Rankin has been marked as Exhibit 89 and entered into the
    24 record.
    284
    1 Also, the petition to the Illinois Pollution
    2 Control Board, 11 page document, has been marked as
    3 Exhibit 90 and entered into the record.
    4
    5 MS. CAMBRIN: Can I say one more thing?
    6
    7 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Yes.
    8
    9 MS. CAMBRIN: Another thing really
    really
    10 apparent to me, that this meeting with the company, that
    11 they obviously did not well research the area. There's a
    12 creek that runs within three-quarters of a mile of this
    13 proposed site, which is Sugar Creek which runs through
    14 three counties. Approximately six road miles from this
    15 facility is Middle Fork River for the reservoir which is
    16 located in Champaign County. Sugar creek runs through
    17 Ford, Vermilion and Champaign County, and then runs --
    18 spills into the Middle Fork River, and then that of
    19 course in turn runs into the Vermilion River. That is an
    20 extremely -- well, as is our whole earth, a delicate
    21 ecosystem, and there's some endangered species that are
    22 living and breeding at Middle Fork and they had no idea.
    23 No idea. That's one of our concerns too is Middle Fork.
    24
    285
    1 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Any questions for Ms.
    2
    Cambrin?
    3
    4 MR. MCLINDEN: Have you had a chance yet to
    5 investigate what watershed will receive the drainage of
    6 any possible spillage from this proposed
    Rankin location
    7 facility? My particular concern is, there's a 900
    8 square mile -- 900 square mile area roughly North of Lake
    9 Vermilion, which is the watershed into Lake Vermilion
    10 which provides the municipal water for all the city of
    11 Danville and a few surrounding small town, which serves
    12 about 40,000 people. So I'm very interested in whether
    13 our potential drinking water is at risk. Do you have any
    14 idea?
    15
    16 MS. CAMBRIN: That's a very good question,
    17 and I would be happy to look into that and let you know
    18 what I have found out.
    19
    20 MS. MCLINDEN: This is the sort of thing that
    21 begs for investigation before any permit could even
    22 possibly be considered.
    23
    24 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Any other questions?
    286
    1 Okay, seeing none, is there anyone else that wants to
    2 testify today that hasn't had an opportunity to? Is
    3 there anyone?
    4 All right. Will the Illinois Environmental
    5 Protection
    Agaency come to the front.
    6
    7 (Witness sworn.)
    8
    9 MR. WARRINGTON: Thank you for this
    10 opportunity to present one last bit of testimony. The
    11 question was raised by several commentators today about
    12 the implementation of a spillway for emergency purposes
    13 at one of these livestock lagoons, and the basic concern
    14 is that a spillway can be installed without diminishing
    15 the protection provided by the either one foot or two
    16 foot freeboard. And I'd like to introduce Dan to relay
    17 his information. Could you introduce yourself and say
    18 what you do and what you did?
    19
    20 MR. HEACOCK: My name is Dan
    Heacock, I'm an
    21 engineer in the permit section in the Bureau of Water
    22 with the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, and am
    23 also an Illinois registered professional engineer.
    24 I investigated briefly the cost of an
    287
    1 emergency spillway for a lagoon. On February 5th, I
    2 contacted and had a telephone call with Harry Means, who
    3 is a state conservation engineer for the National
    4 Resource Conservation Service. According to Mr. Means a
    5 cost of an emergency spillway would typically be
    6 insignificant, since the spillway would be cut in the
    7 lagoon wall at the natural ground surface with the kind
    8 of material, if any, used to build the embankment where
    9 lower ground elevations exists. The cost of the
    10 emergency spillway is not available and has not been
    11 separated from the cost of the lagoon in his experience.
    12 One purpose of the emergency spillway,
    13 according to Mr. Means is to cause the overflow to occur
    14 at the point where the top of the embankment is at
    15 natural ground elevation or at the point of least fill
    16 height. Mr. Means stated, it is very rare for the lagoon
    17 to be built on an occasion where all four walls are above
    18 the natural ground surface elevation. Mr. Means stated
    19 that when a spillway is installed, more earth may be
    20 needed to be moved to provide the freeboard needed for
    21 the lagoon than when no spillway is installed. The NRCS
    22 standard IL-3589-1 of June 1992, requires the crest of
    23 the emergency spillway to be at least one foot below the
    24 top of the settled embankment. Therefore, the lagoon may
    288
    1 be deeper and the embankment higher than the required
    2 freeboard below the crest of the spillway.
    3 Generally, in a construction project
    4 involving earth and materials, the designer attempts to
    5 make the cut involved equivalent to the fill volume, to
    6 minimize the cost of construction. Therefore, for a one
    7 foot deep emergency spillway, the lagoon would need to be
    8 cut approximately six inches deeper into the ground, and
    9 the top of the embankment would need to be approximately
    10 six inches higher as compared to the same lagoon without
    11 such a spillway. Mr. Means states that the cost of a one
    12 acre by 10 feet deep livestock waist lagoon would be
    13 $10,000, and the cost of a six acre by 10 feet deep waste
    14 lagoon would be $35,000. These particular lagoons would
    15 not have excess ramps, a clay liner or other
    16 improvements, but would have an emergency spillway.
    17 On the following -- this on February 6th,
    18 1997, I had a teleconference with an agriculture engineer
    19 with the Natural Resource Engineering Service. Mr.
    Evans
    20 indicates that a complete clay liner would be
    21 approximately two to three dollars per square yard for a
    22 two foot thick liner. Mr.
    Evans indicated this cost
    23 would be in addition to the cost estimated by Mr. Means
    24 for the lagoon construction. Mr.
    Evans stated that the
    289
    1 emergency spillway is located on the lagoon wall where
    2 the least amount of fill is located.
    3 And that's all I have.
    4
    5 MR. WARRINGTON: If there are any questions,
    6 we'd be pleased to answer them.
    7
    8 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Any questions by members
    9 of the audience?
    10
    11 MR. HARRINGTON: Did the spillway you're
    12 speaking of, have any kind of structural support? Was it
    13 made of any type of material? Was there simply an
    14 earthen spillway.
    15
    16 MR. HEACOCK: These were earthen spillways
    17 that we were talking about.
    18
    19 MR. HARRINGTON: Were you made aware of some
    20 testimony that the earthen spillway in itself might be a
    21 source of lagoon failure, because there's an area where
    22 there could be erosion of the lagoon wall?
    23
    24 MR. HEACOCK: I'm not aware of that
    290
    1 particular testimony. I'm directing that anywhere where
    2 the lagoon would overflow, there would be concern about
    3 erosion whether there was an emergency spillway present
    4 or not.
    5 One of the points indicated here is that you
    6 locate that overflow point where there's no fill or the
    7 least amount of fill, which is more susceptible to
    8 erosion than an unfilled section of wall for that lagoon.
    9
    10 MR. HARRINGTON: So for the lagoons with all
    11 built up walls around, where would you put the spillway?
    12
    13 MR. HEACOCK: If they were all the same
    14 height as far as fill?
    15
    16 MR. HARRINGTON: Yes.
    17
    18 MR. HEACOCK: Then I don't know that there
    19 would be a critical point for that location.
    20
    21 MR. HARRINGTON: The spillway at that point
    22 requires structural reinforcement?
    23
    24 MR. HEACOCK: Yes, it may.
    291
    1 MR. HARRINGTON: Do you have any idea what
    2 the cost of such protection would be?
    3
    4 MR. HEACOCK: Not offhand, no.
    5
    6 MR. HARRINGTON: Thank you.
    7
    8 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you. Mr.
    9
    Warrington.
    10 MR. WARRINGTON: Tom
    Warrington. What kind
    11 of structural protection would be available for things
    12 like rift raft, or rock, or rubble, or tile or what?
    13
    14 MR. HEACOCK: Concrete. Some type of
    15 synthetic membrane would be used. Those would be some
    16 typical type materials.
    17
    18 MR. WARRINGTON: Do you have any feel for the
    19 cost of those or --
    20
    21 MR. HEACOCK: Well, the typical design or the
    22 design in 3589-1, it's one foot deep by four foot wide
    23 spillway. Synthetic membrane, I don't know offhand the
    24 cost of that. You know, probably less than $1,000, but
    292
    1 that's -- I have no base figures to base that on. Just a
    2 guess.
    3
    4 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: When you answer, please
    5 speak up a little bit louder.
    6
    7 MS. MANNING: Short question. I think we
    8 need to get on the record and they deal with the
    9 agency's -- sort of the agency's role not in the
    10 Livestock Management Facilities Act, but under the
    11 environmental act. Particularly, if the agency could
    12 explain for me and for the record, its position on
    13 whether a lagoon becomes a point source and therefore
    14 subject to the MPDS program.
    15
    16 MR. WARRINGTON: The way the rules are
    17 presently by the board, which is derived from the Federal
    18 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations.
    19
    20 MS. MANNING: We're talking about 35.
    21
    22 MR. WARRINGTON: Existing board regulations,
    23 various categories are decided by size of the animal
    24 feeding operations. And depending on their categories
    293
    1 for either, are required to have an MPDS permit or
    2 description of the agency. But in each case, that permit
    3 has an exception, that if it's designed to contain all
    4 the waste, except in the event of a 25 year rainfall
    5 event, then it's exempt from getting an MPDS permit.
    6 There are occasions when we have investigated
    7 complaints that we found that the lagoon walls are not
    8 impermeable but allowing seeps or leaks, and that would
    9 constitute a claim source. We find occasions where the
    10 operator is behind on his pump on schedule or whatever is
    11 required is gone and the unit is
    overtopping at some
    12 place, that constitutes a source. So in those two
    13 situations, the agency has a certain amount of discretion
    14 whether to bring a suit for violation of the act, which
    15 would require a MPDS permit for a source, and it could
    16 also require a MPDS permit as a case by case basis as
    17 part of a control basis until they got the situation back
    18 under control. Then the situations where when you have a
    19 discharge from a lagoon and it's not caused by a 25 year
    20 storm event, it would be a point source and subject to
    21 the MPDS requirements.
    22
    23 MR. RAO: Should that be due to water or
    24 damage?
    294
    1 MR. WARRINGTON: After a surface water
    2 discharge?
    3
    4 MS. MANNING: A lagoon leaking into the
    5 ground water, is not considered by the agency to be a
    6 discharge?
    7
    8 MR. WARRINGTON: We have to get back to you
    9 on that one. I would have to check the Ground Water Act
    10 and see how that places on it.
    11
    12 MS. MANNING: That's fine, you can do that in
    13 your response. That's certain a legal question I'm
    14 asking. Could you, for the record, for violations of the
    15 Environmental Regulation Act and by a Livestock
    16 Management, Livestock Waste Facility?
    17
    18 MR. WARRINGTON: Livestock Management
    19 Facilities Act, there's a section in there that preserves
    20 the present rights, responsibility and duties of the
    21 agency to enforce the environmental act and board
    22 regulations.
    23 And as Mr. Taylor testified earlier today,
    24 the agency program is a complaint based program. That
    295
    1 when we find information from any source or any
    2 complaint, conduct an investigation, find out if
    3 contaminants or manure has either reached the waters of
    4 the state, either from a leaking lagoon, an
    overtopped
    5 lagoon.
    6 We have situations where they might be land
    7 applying over vigorously, such that the soil becomes
    8 saturated and eventually reaching surface waters. And we
    9 have cases where manure is piled too close to waterways,
    10 it gets into it in rain storms. All of those have
    11 potential. And some cases have caused violations of the
    12 board's water folic standards. Usually ammonia,
    13 sometimes biological oxygen demand, sometimes total
    14 suspended solids, and in some cases the concentration of
    15 pollutant has caused a fish kill.
    16 So when we find information such as that, we
    17 document them, prepare a strategy to deal with it, and
    18 the next step would be to meet with the producer and see
    19 if there's waste that can be collected speedily, quickly
    20 and efficiently. If that fails, are next option is to
    21 refer that kind of violation to the Governor's office or
    22 to the county's states attorney, who then has the option
    23 of bringing a suit to force that kind of compliance, and
    24 force that kind of change as operations to prevent that
    296
    1 kind of occurrence in the future. And secure penalties
    2 for that violation.
    3
    4 MR. GIRARD: I have a quick related question.
    5 Are you going on with same line?
    6
    7 MS. MANNING: Yes.
    8
    9 MR. GIRARD: Go ahead.
    10
    11 MS. MANNING: I want to make sure the agency
    12 does not consider any current provision of Livestock
    13 Facilities Act to impinge on any --
    14
    15 MR. WARRINGTON: That is correct.
    16
    17 MR. GIRARD: Going back to your complaint
    18 process and responding to complaints, do you ever get any
    19 complaints forwarded by the Department of Agriculture or,
    20 you know, complaints that come to you by way of their
    21 inspection duties under other laws?
    22
    23 MR. WARRINGTON: Do you ever get any
    24 complains that have been forwarded to you by Department
    297
    1 of Agriculture employees based on their activities?
    2
    3 MR. TAYLOR: I don't recall any specifically
    4 offhand where they have referred situations to us. I
    5 know we've had health departments and local health
    6 departments, as well as state and other entities,
    7 governmental entities have referred cases to us. It's
    8 not to say the Department of Agricultural hasn't at one
    9 time or another. We do refer certain cases to them
    10 whenever our field people observe dead animals being
    11 disposed of improperly, we report that to the Department
    12 of Agriculture.
    13
    14 MR. GIRARD: I guess my question would be, if
    15 an agricultural inspector was out looking at dead animals
    16 and noticed a potential violation of, you know,
    17 agricultural runoff entering a stream, would you get a
    18 forwarded complaint or, you know, a question from them to
    19 go look into that particular possibility?
    20
    21 MR. TAYLOR: That would be more appropriately
    22 answered by the Department of Agricultural. In the past,
    23 I'm not sure all the department's inspectors were fully
    24 cognizant of the regulations that we administer, so
    298
    1 whether or not they would have appropriate knowledge to
    2 forward such complaint to us is there. I think with
    3 their more recent involvement with these laws and
    4 proposed regulations, that it's much more likely to
    5 occur, if in fact their field people, in dealing with
    6 these livestock operations, can't get a problem resolved.
    7
    8 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Mr.
    Goetsch.
    9
    10 MR. GOETSCH: Doctor Paul
    Melketch of the
    11 Animal Welfare is not with us today. I believe there
    12 have been cases in both directions, in that our people
    13 involved in the administration of the Dead Animal
    14 Disposal Act has indeed forwarded people to the agency,
    15 just as the agency has forwarded dead animal issues to
    16 the department.
    17
    18 MR. TAYLOR: I can't recall any specific
    19 incidents. I'm not saying they haven't in the past.
    20 There have been situations where we've done inspections
    21 because there have been dead animal disposal problems as
    22 well as livestock waste management problems at the same
    23 site and involve basically the same investigation. But
    24 here again, I can't say they haven't.
    299
    1 MR. WARRINGTON: You can't record them?
    2
    3 MR. TAYLOR: Our field sheet does have places
    4 for that, but I'm not sure the Department of Agriculture
    5 is on there; there's another category. I guess what I'm
    6 saying, and I'm not sure if this is what you're asking, I
    7 don't think we can allege that they have not passed the
    8 information on to us.
    9
    10 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Mr. Goetsch.
    11
    12 MR. GOETSCH: As an example, in our
    13 agra-chemical containment and pesticide program, I
    14 believe we do have an excellent working with their field
    15 staff and have forwarded numerous complaints to us, and
    16 we've done numerous joint inspections with them. And we
    17 would anticipate the same kind of relationship to occur
    18 as our activity associated with the Livestock Management
    19 Facility Act further is developed.
    20
    21 MS. ERVIN: Do you think it's important that
    22 citizens know that two agencies have this type of working
    23 relationship or that they can approach -- that they
    24 should approach one or the other in certain situations
    300
    1 or --
    2
    3 MR. GOETSCH: In the livestock management
    4 program, that kind of educational activity where we make
    5 sure people are aware. Hopefully, the legislature will
    6 see fit to provide funding in the coming years. Public
    7 outreach type of problems.
    8
    9 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you, Mr. Goetsch.
    10
    11 MS. MANNING: I would point out too, for the
    12 record, there's a provision in the act, even with the
    13 complaint procedure, allowing citizens specifically to
    14 call the agency; the agency then calls the department.
    15 It's section 509, I think. No, I'm sorry, complaint
    16 procedure, any person having complaint, file a complaint
    17 with the agency and then if the agency finds the ground
    18 water negatively impacted because of structure problems,
    19 it shall notify the department. It also says that the
    20 agency -- nothing in the section shall limit the agency's
    21 authority under the Environmental Protection Act in
    22 response to rules adopted thereunder.
    23 My understanding of that, and if anybody
    24 wants to legally argue this point, they ought to do this.
    301
    1 But my understanding of that, this complaint procedure
    2 does not foreclose any other activities of the
    3 Environmental Protection Agency subject under the
    4 Environmental Protection Act.
    5
    6 MR. WARRINGTON: That's the way we interpret
    7 it as well.
    8
    9 MR. BORUFF: Yes, we agree.
    10
    11 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Any other questions for
    12 the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency?
    13 All right. We have two things to do. We
    14 would like to enter in those exhibits from Mr. Taber.
    15
    16 MR. TABER: Previously at the Galesburg
    17 hearing, I believe Dr. DePetry wanted a report by Dan
    18 Elotto and John Lawrence, and we did not have a copy of
    19 it. We now would like to enter that into the record.
    20 For the record, this is the 1996 version or the Illinois
    21 Pork Industry 1995, written in 1996, the one that Dr.
    22 DePetry -- was the 1992 version.
    23
    24 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you, Mr. Taber.
    302
    1 We'll mark this report as Exhibit Number 91, entitled
    2 Illinois Pork Industry 1995, Pattern Economic Importance.
    3
    4 MR. TABER: And also Mike Rapsey's testimony
    5 at the Mt. Vernon report by the Environmental Protection
    6 Agency regarding Inventory and Assessment of Surface
    7 Impacts, and they were nice enough to give us several
    8 copies of that report, and I'd like to enter that into
    9 evidence as well.
    10
    11 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you, Mr. Taber.
    12 We'll mark the State of Illinois Environmental Protection
    13 Division of Land and Noise Pollution Control Inventory
    14 and Assessment of Surface Impacts of Illinois as Exhibit
    15 Number 92. Thank you, Mr. Taber.
    16 Now if the Department of Natural Resources
    17 would come, and this will be the final testimony we hear
    18 today.
    19
    20 MS. MANNING: I will ask as well, when I ask
    21 about the task force report, we had a question on the
    22 record if there was any documentation that was used on
    23 reliance of that task force report, that we would like
    24 that provided as well. So if there was any documentation
    303
    1 or studies that you would like to provide with the task
    2 force report, that would be appreciated as well.
    3
    4 MR. TABER: You mean documentation mentioned
    5 in the task force report?
    6
    7 MS. MANNING: Yes. I haven't looked at the
    8 task force report for a long time, I'm not sure what
    9 documentation was relied upon.
    10
    11 MS. BUSHERLOG: Hello, I'm Cindy Busherlog,
    12 I'm legal counsel for the Department of Natural
    13 Resources, and everyone knows John Marlin by now, and
    14 Deanna Glasser who testified at the -- Dr. Deanna
    15 Glasser.
    16
    17 (Witness sworn.)
    18
    19 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Ms. Busherlog.
    20
    21 MR. MARLIN: I know it's late now, and I was
    22 suppose to be at a birthday party starting at six, so
    23 we'll make this as quick as possible. I'm going to skip
    24 some of our prepared things.
    304
    1 Tonight I represent the Department of Natural
    2 Resources, not just our front office and director. This
    3 issue has motivated a strong degree of interagency
    4 cooperation, which we don't see on many efforts. In a
    5 very real sense, the employees of our department feel
    6 that the resources that we are charged with holding a
    7 public trust for the public are at risk.
    8 I'm going to begin by pointing out or trying
    9 to answer some of the board's questions previously posed
    10 on how many acres would be involved if a half mile
    11 setback were placed around DNR properties. This is a
    12 very difficult thing to answer, due to the fact that
    13 there are so many pieces of information and so many data
    14 sets, some which are computerized.
    15 I'm going to give you some estimates based on
    16 setbacks basically from property we own or lease. We use
    17 a variety of geographic information systems, GIS
    18 Technology and Toe Toe Interpretation in this effort.
    19 I'll begin by introducing a brand new map, which we call
    20 the land cover map of Illinois. I have five copies that
    21 we'll leave with the board. This is, in a nutshell, a
    22 digitized manmade, largely with satellites imagery, and
    23 it's a rather detailed map prepared by a variety of our
    24 divisions which I will not list.
    305
    1 If we can introduce that now. The copies you
    2 receive have a little sheet with them, which we do not
    3 want to make an exhibit, which has some of the
    4 abbreviations.
    5
    6 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: I'll mark the map of the
    7 Land Cover of Illinois as Exhibit Number 93. This land
    8 cover category is just something that --
    9
    10 MR. MARLIN: You could follow along with now.
    11 It's a Xerox of a portion of the map, so you don't have
    12 to follow the map.
    13
    14 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Okay, it's a Xerox of the
    15 map.
    16
    17 MR. MARLIN: More than 36 million acres exist
    18 in the state of Illinois could be the text of this
    19 testimony. It's important to realize that 77.45 percent
    20 of the statewide acreage is currently agricultural land,
    21 including 54 percent of the total land in the state being
    22 in crops, forest and food land, account for another
    23 11.334 acres. Urban, 5.79 percent. Wetlands are 3.24
    24 percent, including .03 percent swamp land for example.
    306
    1 For a total of 100 percent when you get down to the
    2 bottom of the list.
    3 Due to the timeframe involved in this
    4 process, and the fact that digitized information was not
    5 available for all sites, some of the maps which we
    6 intended to have to show the two estimates, I'm going to
    7 give you for a one mile setback and half mile setback
    8 will not be included in the record. They are work
    9 documents. We'll have these maps, which are sitting
    10 here, available for the board and anyone else to look at,
    11 to get an idea of how some of what I'm saying can be
    12 visualized, but we'll not be entering those into the
    13 formal record.
    14 The first estimate we're going to present is
    15 for a one mile setback as required by livestock
    16 facilities, about 7,000 or more animal units. The data
    17 set for this estimate include all DNR and historic
    18 preservation lands owned by our department as well as
    19 publicly held Illinois natural inventory sites and major
    20 preserves. The area of such sites is approximately
    21 437,000 acres. The uncorrected one mile setback arrived
    22 at these facilities, includes approximately 12,179,000
    23 acres or about six percent of the state. I'll explain
    24 the need for a correction after using the one-half mile
    307
    1 zones. Additionally, remember that most proposed
    2 livestock facilities are far below the 7,000 animal unit
    3 figure. So the estimate for the one-half mile setback is
    4 the one that has the most relevance to this proceeding.
    5 The second estimate is, as I said, for the one-half mile
    6 setback from populated areas required for a 1,000 animal
    7 unit operation. The estimate is based on DNR owned or
    8 leased sites. The area of such sites outside of
    9 municipal boundaries is estimated at 408,200 acres.
    10 We've excluded within municipal boundaries because they
    11 already have a setback by the municipal zones. A half
    12 mile setback around these areas is estimated at 884,860
    13 acres prior to being corrected. This is less than two
    14 and a half percent of the state's total acres, and if you
    15 recall our earlier estimate was slightly less than three.
    16 Note again that 77.45 percent of the state's acreage is
    17 agricultural already. And nature preserves occurring at
    18 or within the Scarbrook State Park to such a degree that
    19 some being acres were counted by the computer program
    20 in coming up with the approximately two and a half
    21 percent. This overlap occurred at numerous other places,
    22 Especially those which contain nature preserves.
    23 Secondly, there was no effective way which is a
    24 calculation, and the amount of lands already setback
    308
    1 zones do to residences and businesses from near the
    2 proposed DRN setbacks. And third, a tremendous amount of
    3 DNR acreage is located in or near places like the Shawnee
    4 National forest. And if you look at that land cover map,
    5 down at the bottom of the state, you'll see that our
    6 sites down there are already within an area which is
    7 generally not available for livestock facility.
    8 I'm going to now present a second set of
    9 maps, which are for more detail and deal with a smaller
    10 area. They demonstrate the best we can of the type of
    11 coverage and protection already afforded to acres
    12 adjacent to our property because of residences. These
    13 maps were prepared at the Waste Management Research
    14 Center, and the verification was done by geological
    15 survey people. I might add, they worked till 11:30
    16 Tuesday night in a photo lab doing that. And there
    17 was -- in an efforts to determine how much land within a
    18 proposed half mile setback, existing residential setback
    19 alone, which was usually a quarter mile.
    20 Now we have five state parks or conservation
    21 areas which were included in this. They were all
    22 collected because they were relatively normal sized in
    23 rural areas away from populated areas. These include
    24 Marine View State Park, Counselom in Adams, Brown
    309
    1 County. Samdale Lake Conservation Area in Wayne County.
    2 And the Washington County Conservation Area in Washington
    3 County. The five parts conservation areas and one trail,
    4 the Rock Island Trail, were collected and located on U.S.
    5 topographic maps. Boundaries and solid square residences
    6 and businesses were put into a GIS System. The system
    7 then generated a half mile setback zone around the
    8 boundary that is visible on the exhibit as what has been
    9 referred to in this proceeding before. Likewise, a
    10 one-fourth mile boundary was computer generated around
    11 all the residences, and a half mile around clusters of
    12 ten or more residences, which would get the half mile
    13 setback. The number of acres within the DNR proposed
    14 setback zone already afforded protection but could then
    15 be readily determined by the software program, as could
    16 the areas that were covered only by the DNR zone.
    17 Given that the information on the USGS maps
    18 regarding residences was at least 20 years old, we
    19 decided to try to the best of our ability to verify
    20 whether that data was still accurate. In a nutshell, we
    21 had the geologic take maps from the U of I Library of
    22 those areas of 1993 to 1995. We had two people with
    23 photo interpretation experience go house by house around
    24 these parks and verify the existence. This showed there
    310
    1 was little change. Three parts experienced no change,
    2 while one gained three and the other gained 23
    3 residences. However, due to the locations of dwellings
    4 added or removed, the location of dwellings added or
    5 removed, the results was little or no expected change in
    6 the amount of setback area. We're therefore confident
    7 that the acreages on the five maps of the parks are
    8 reasonably accurate.
    9 I would also note, if someone wants to go dot
    10 by dot like we did, we did include one mine shaft of the
    11 designated residences by accident, and one house was
    12 skipped. So, a tiny bit of inaccuracy on that. An
    13 example of the result would be Marine View State Park,
    14 which is the first small map in the exhibit, and an
    15 example of a half mile setback around Marine View State
    16 Park, 2,653 acres of which 1,781 are already unavailable
    17 to livestock facilities due to residential setbacks.
    18
    19 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Let the record reflect
    20 that the exhibit he is referring to, Livestock Setbacks
    21 Information, has been marked as Exhibit Number 94 and
    22 entered into the record.
    23
    24 MR. MARLIN: The Rock Island Trail was put
    311
    1 into the system but not verified photographs. 67 percent
    2 around the proposed buffer was already covered by
    3 residential setbacks. And without going through the
    4 table on the first page of Exhibit 94, Ill just give you
    5 the summary figures. 25 parks, if you add up all the
    6 acreage fully, 53 percent of the land in a half mile
    7 setback around those five properties is already
    8 unavailable to livestock new facilities because they're
    9 covered by residential setbacks.
    10 If you combine the information contained on
    11 the five park maps and the Rock Island Trail, the average
    12 of 60 percent of the land within a half a mile of the DNR
    13 Boundaries are found to already be unavailable due to
    14 residential setbacks. So if you look at these numbers,
    15 admittedly a small sample but as accurate as we can get,
    16 approximately two and a half percent statewide. That two
    17 and a half percent is probably going to diminish
    18 substantially. This information strongly supports our
    19 context of two and a half percent is in fact an over
    20 estimate. More importantly, however, these six maps
    21 clearly slow that even with surrounding existing
    22 residential development, our state parks and recreation
    23 areas have livestock lagoons near their borders as is
    24 currently happening in the area. Using Marine View as an
    312
    1 example again, the map shows lagoons could be located
    2 adjacent to the park on all four sides, despite the fact
    3 that the perimeter is within a residential setback.
    4 Those obviously are few shots around the perimeter are
    5 not included within one of the circles within residential
    6 setback. That concludes the comments on Exhibit 94.
    7 I have three short observations on the record
    8 and then I will be finished. Counsel has reminded me of
    9 the large maps. These are the maps that we're going to
    10 show you when you want. It was my understanding, you
    11 want them displayed after the testimony?
    12
    13 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Yes.
    14
    15 MR. MARLIN: Or after the hearing. I don't
    16 see a point of unrolling them right now.
    17
    18 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: I agree.
    19
    20 MR. MARLIN: Three brief comments that may
    21 help with some of the interpretation here. The livestock
    22 section 586, notes that due to increasing numbers of
    23 animals at Livestock Management Facilities, there's a
    24 potential for greater impact on the immediate area.
    313
    1 Consistent with this observation, the law sets up
    2 protective setback zones for certain populated areas
    3 based on their difference from a livestock facility and
    4 the type of area to be protected. We note that a
    5 business which houses its employees indoors where walls,
    6 doors and air conditioning is available to mitigate odor,
    7 a building of that type is clearly afforded a one-half
    8 mile setback by the statute.
    9 We note that people visit our facilities for
    10 outdoor experiences which are far more severely impacted
    11 by odor. DNR believes that the legislature believes
    12 public investment in outdoor parks and recreation as
    13 commercial buildings.
    14 Second, I note rules be precise and have a
    15 minimum ambiguity, especially in matters providing
    16 procedure standards and measurements. The proposed
    17 definition of populated area in the proposal before you
    18 today is unclear as to what physically constitutes a
    19 place of common assembly in the case of outdoor areas.
    20 If this matter is not clarified by the board, the
    21 potential exists for disputes each time a livestock
    22 facility is proposed near a recreation. Such disputes
    23 may end up before the board or circuit court in the
    24 future. Requiring boundary measurements from the --
    314
    1 requiring setback measurement from the property boundary
    2 will remove this ambiguity.
    3 Lastly, draw your attention to section 100 of
    4 the LMNA, which states nothing in this act shall be
    5 construed as a limitation or presumption of any statutory
    6 or regulatory under the Illinois Environmental Protection
    7 Act of the section 20-A has similar language and it
    8 applies to livestock waste. This provision provides
    9 considerable latitude for interpreting the LMNA within
    10 the context of the Environmental Protection Act rather
    11 than solely as a stand alone act.
    12 And with that, I conclude my testimony.
    13
    14 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you, Dr. Marlin.
    15
    16 MS. MANNING: I have a question about the
    17 Shawnee National Forest. I think you indicated Shawnee
    18 National Forest would be included in your proposed
    19 definition?
    20
    21 MR. MARLIN: Yes, our definition includes
    22 lands for conservation recreation purposes. And the way
    23 the Shawnee National Forest works into that, given that
    24 the Shawnee is basically a large block that does not
    315
    1 effect, if you will, on that is kind of like a geologists
    2 reference to the biology of a flea in terms of an
    3 elephant. Simply put, a half mile boundary around
    4 forest acreage contained in the Shawnee Forest will have
    5 a much smaller number of acres than if you took the vast
    6 Shawnee and broke it in 200 sites and put a half mile
    7 buffer around each one.
    8
    9 MS. MANNING: But the Shawnee National Forest
    10 doesn't include some of those areas that you're sheet --
    11 that you gave us, other agricultural land?
    12
    13 MR. MARLIN: Yes.
    14
    15 MS. MANNING: Is included in the Shawnee
    16 National Forest, is that correct?
    17
    18 MR. MARLIN: That's correct. You think
    19 overall when I look at it in terms of where the state's
    20 primary land is located and where our facilities are
    21 located, you'll find a half mile buffer around our
    22 facilities takes in far less crop land. So again, much
    23 of that two and a half percent or whatever the actual
    24 figure is, is not really agricultural land, a lot of that
    316
    1 is woods, and scrub ground and land that is not otherwise
    2 classified as agricultural. There is agriculture land
    3 there, obviously, but not to the degree you would find it
    4 in Champaign County or McLean or the other 54 percent of
    5 the state in my tell all.
    6
    7 MS. MANNING: Just to clarify livestock
    8 setback information you gave us a couple weeks ago, this
    9 is not an inclusive list of all DNR property?
    10
    11 MR. MARLIN: Which one is that?
    12
    13 MS. MANNING: The livestock --
    14
    15 MR. MARLIN: No, that is only six properties.
    16 Like I said, we tried to be representative there.
    17
    18 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Any other questions?
    19
    20 MR. HARRINGTON: Doctor Marlin, was any
    21 effort made to determine how many of the residences that
    22 were located within -- using your calculations, were farm
    23 residences?
    24
    317
    1 MR. MARLIN: No, we had no way of doing that.
    2 We just took what was on the publicly available maps. We
    3 had no ability at that time.
    4
    5 MR. HARRINGTON: So some or perhaps many of
    6 those residences could be located on farms which could
    7 either now have or elect to have expanded feeding
    8 operations, is that correct?
    9
    10 MR. MARLIN: I couldn't say many but some.
    11 Possibly some of them are, yes. We don't have a
    12 definitive answer.
    13
    14 MR. HARRINGTON: Was there any calculation
    15 made of how many farms would be unable to go into
    16 concentrated animal feeding operations because of the
    17 setbacks?
    18
    19 MR. MARLIN: No, we had no ability to do
    20 that.
    21
    22 MR. HARRINGTON: So we do not know if any
    23 individual farms or farmer would be impacted by this
    24 increase in the setbacks?
    318
    1 MR. MARLIN: No, we don't. But I would
    2 maintain, this is not an increase in the setbacks since
    3 the statute gives a half mile from an operated area, any
    4 increase would be based on the change in how the -- how
    5 the board interprets where the setback is measured from,
    6 because I don't believe that has ever been interpreted.
    7
    8 MR. HARRINGTON: Don't you agree with me,
    9 most of legislatures would be shocked to find out the
    10 Shawnee National Forest was a populated area?
    11
    12 MR. MARLIN: Not according to the context of
    13 the visitorship down there, no. If they took populated,
    14 being like Chicago, obviously, yes.
    15
    16 MR. HARRINGTON: Compared to the rest of the
    17 state?
    18
    19 MR. MARLIN: No, the way populated is used in
    20 the statute is more defined by use than residence. 50 or
    21 more people once -- or more people once a week, using the
    22 statute as opposed to public concept of populated.
    23
    24 MR. HARRINGTON: 50 people use some part of
    319
    1 the Shawnee National Forest, that means the whole Shawnee
    2 National Forest is a populated area?
    3
    4 MR. MARLIN: I'm have to think about that
    5 one. One could make that assumption under this
    6 definition, yes.
    7
    8 MR. HARRINGTON: Did you believe that was the
    9 intent of legislature?
    10
    11 MR. MARLIN: I think the Shawnee is an
    12 unusual example, but if you use the legislative
    13 definition, I would have to say that they would interpret
    14 it that way.
    15 But again, I would emphasize, that's the
    16 extreme case. Most facilities with 50 or more people are
    17 far smaller than the Shawnee National Forest.
    18
    19 MR. HARRINGTON: Within the Shawnee National
    20 Forest, that would essentially be within the setback
    21 zone, correct?
    22
    23 MR. MARLIN: Depends on the measurement.
    24 Shawnee has various natural sizes. I think generally a
    320
    1 setback around the lands of Shawnee National Forest would
    2 preclude the large livestock operations in the holding
    3 areas. By in large, there are probably a few exceptions.
    4
    5 MR. HARRINGTON: And by in large, you mean
    6 anything over 300?
    7
    8 MR. MARLIN: By large, I think I'll use the
    9 title 35 definition right now, which I can't remember if
    10 it's 300 or 1,000. You can go with the existing state
    11 definition, it will speak for itself. I've heard so much
    12 testimony on that, I'm not sure what large is.
    13
    14 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you. No further
    15 questions of Dr. Marlin.
    16
    17 MR. WARRINGTON: Under these proposed
    18 regulations, if there was an existing livestock facility
    19 in one of these in holdings, wouldn't it be able to
    20 expand regardless of the interpretation the setback?
    21
    22 MR. MARLIN: I believe they would have the
    23 ability to explain, and once they are grandfathered in.
    24 We're basically talking about precluding new operations
    321
    1 of these setbacks, not the existing ones.
    2
    3 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you, Dr. Marlin.
    4 Very well, I would like to say that the record of this
    5 matter will be closing on February 14th, so if you want
    6 to get comments to the board, make certain that they are
    7 received by the board.
    8
    9 MS. MANNING: Thanks everybody for their
    10 patience for this long haul within the last two weeks.
    11 It's been interesting for us. Hopefully, we have a long
    12 process ahead of us.
    13 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you.
    14
    15
    16 (This is all the proceedings
    17 had on this day.)
    18
    19
    20
    21
    22
    23
    24
    322
    1 STATE OF ILLINOIS )
    ) SS
    2 COUNTY OF ST. CLAIR )
    3 I, JUNE J. WINKLER, a Notary Public in and for the
    4 County of St.
    Clair, State of Illinois, and CSR, do hereby
    5 certify that on February 7, 1997, at the offices of the
    6 Champaign
    Brookens Administrative Center, 1776 East Washington,
    7 Champaign, Illinois, the foregoing proceeding was taken down in
    8 shorthand by me and afterwards transcribed upon the computer.
    9 I DO HEREBY FURTHER CERTIFY that the foregoing is a
    10 true and correct transcript of said proceeding.
    11 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and
    12 affixed my
    Notarial Seal on this 15th day of February, 1997.
    13
    14
    15
    16
    __________________________________
    17 June J.
    Winkler, CSR - #084-003206
    18
    19 My commission expires February 19, 1999.
    20
    21
    22
    23
    24

    Back to top