Lisa Madigan
tVIIORNEYGENERAL
The Honorable Dorothy Gunn
Illinois Pollution Control Board
State of Illinois Center
100 West Randolph
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Dear Clerk Gunn
:
Enclosed for filing please find the original and ten copies of a NOTICE OF FILING and
MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONDENT MURPHY'S AMENDED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE in regard
to the above-captioned matter
. Please file the original and return a file-stamped copy of the
document to our office in the enclosed, self-addressed envelope
.
RECEIVEDCLERK'S
OFFICE
APR 2 6 2006
STATE OF ILLINOIS
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Pollution Control Board
STATE OF ILLINOIS
April 21, 2006
Re :
People v. The Highlands, LLC.,
et al.
PCB No
. 00-104
1001 East Main, Carbondale, Illinois 62901
• (618) 529-6400 - "ITY
: (618) 529-6403 • Fax : (618) 529-6416
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration
.
Very truly yours,
/Jane E . McBride
Environmental Bureau
500 South Second Street
Springfield, Illinois 62706
(217) 782-9031
JEM/pp
Enclosures
500 South Second Street, Springfield, Illinois 62706 -
(217) 782-1090 • TTY: (217) 785-2771 •
Fax : (217) 782-7046
100 West Randolph Street, Chicago, Illinois 60601 • (312) 814-3000
• TTY: (312) 814-3374 •
Fax : (312) 814-3806
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
Complainant,
V .
THE HIGHLANDS, LLC, an Illinois limited
liability corporation, and MURPHY
FARMS, INC ., (a division of MURPHY-
BROWN, LLC, a North Carolina limited
liability corporation, and SMITHFIELD
FOODS, INC., a Virginia corporation),
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
Respondents .
To :
Mr. Jeffrey W
. Tock
Harrington, Tock & Royse
201 W . Springfield Avenue, Ste . 601
P .O . Box 1550
Champaign, IL 61824-1550
NOTICE OF FILING
PCB NO. 00-104
(Enforcement)
Mr. Charles M
. Gering
Foley & Lardner
321 N . Clarke St .
Suite 2800
Chicago, IL 60610-4764
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on April 21, 2006, I mailed for filing with the Clerk of the
Pollution Control Board of the State of Illinois, a MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONDENT MURPHY'S
AMENDED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, a copy of which is attached hereto and herewith served
upon you .
Respectfully submitted,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
LISA MADIGAN
Attorney General of the
State of Illinois
MATTHEW J . DUNN, Chief
Environmental Enforcement/Asbestos
Litigation Division
BY: C
t1 c=z~C-~ ~/
JANE E
. McBRIDE
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
500 South Second Street
Springfield, Illinois 62706
217/782-9031
Dated : April 21, 2006
RECEIVEDCLERK'S
OFFICE
APR 2 6 2006
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I did on April 21, 2006, send by First Class Mail, with postage thereon
fully prepaid, by depositing in a United States Post Office Box a true and correct copy of the
following instruments entitled NOTICE OF FILING and MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONDENT
MURPHY'S AMENDED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
To :
Mr . Jeffrey W
. Tock
Mr. Charles M . Gering
Harrington, Tock & Royse
Foley & Lardner
201 W
. Springfield Avenue, Ste . 601
321 N . Clarke St.
P
.O
. Box 1550
Suite 2800
Champaign, IL 61824-1550
Chicago, IL 60610-4764
and the original and ten copies by First Class Mail with postage thereon fully prepaid of the
same foregoing instrument(s) :
To :
Dorothy Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
State of Illinois Center
Suite 11-500
100 West Randolph
Chicago, Illinois 60601
A copy was also sent by First Class Mail with postage thereon fully prepaid and by facsimile
(312) 814-3669
To :
Mr
. Brad Halloran, Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R
. Thompson Center, Ste . 11-500
100 West Randolph
Chicago, IL 60601
Anne E
. McBride
Assistant Attorney General
This filing is submitted on recycled paper
.
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
)
Complainant,
)
v.
)
THE HIGHLANDS, LLC, an Illinois limited
)
liability corporation, and MURPHY
)
FARMS, INC ., (a division of MURPHY-
)
BROWN, LLC, a North Carolina limited
)
liability corporation, and SMITHFIELD
)
FOODS, INC ., a Virginia corporation)
.
)
Respondents.
)
PCB No
. 00-104
(Enforcement)
MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONDENT MURPHY'S AMENDED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
NOW COMES, Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ex rel. Lisa
Madigan, Attorney General of the State of Illinois, and moves the Board to strike Respondent
Murphy Farms, Inc's ("Respondent Murphy" or "Murphy Farms, Inc .") Amended Affirmative
Defense on the following grounds and for the following reasons :
Standard
1 .
Section 2-613 (d) of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, 735 ILCS 5/2-613(d),
provides, in part :
The facts constituting any affirmative defense . . .
and any defense which by
other affirmative matter seeks to avoid the legal effect of or defeat the cause of action
set forth in the complaint,
. . .
in whole or in part, and any ground or defense, whether
affirmative or not, which, if not expressly stated in the pleading, should be likely to take
the opposite party by surprise, must be plainly set forth in the answer of reply
. 735
ILCS 5/2-613(d) (2000) .
cited in People v. Wood River Refining Company, PCB 99-120, slip o p. at 3-4 (August 8, 2002),
2.
A valid affirmative defense gives color to the opposing party's claim but then
asserts new matter which defeats an apparent right . Condon v. American Telephone and
Telegram Co., 210 III . App . 3d 701, 709, 569 N .E.2d 518, 523 (2d Dist . 1991), citing The
Warner Agency Inc . v. Doyle, 121 III . App . 3d 219, 222, 459 N .E.2d 633, 635 (4 th Dist. 1984) .
3 .
A motion to strike an affirmative defense admits well-pleaded facts constituting
RECEIVEDCLERK'S
OFFICE
APR 2 6 2006
STATE
PollutionOControl
ILLIN
Boa
d
the defense, and attacks only the legal sufficiency of the
facts . "Where the well-pleaded facts
of an affirmative defense raise the possibility that the party asserting them will prevail, the
defense should not be stricken ."
International Insurance Co. v. Sargent
and Lundy, 242 III.
App . 3d 614, 630-31, 609 N
.E .2d 842, 853-54 (1 5` Dist . 1993), citing
Raprager v . Allstate
Insurance Co., 183 III . App . 3d 847, 854, 539 N .E
. 2d 787, 791 (2nd Dist . 1989) .
4.
An asserted affirmative defense is not, by definition,
an affirmative defense, even
if proven true at hearing, if it is an assertion that will
not impact the complainant's legal right to
bring the action . Glave v. Harris et
al, Village of Grayslake v. Winds Chat Kennel, Inc,
PCB 02-
11, PCB 02-32 (Consolidated), slip op. at
2 (January 24, 2002), citing People v. Crane, PCB 01-
76 (May 17, 2000) .
Nature andBasis of Motion to Stike
5.
In its amended affirmative defense, Respondent Murphy
asserts the doctrine of
laches is applicable to Count I of the Second Amended
Complaint because, Respondent
claims, the Complainant did not object to the proposed
location and the operations of the
Highlands' farm prior to or during construction of,
or initiation of operations at, the facility .
6.
Respondent's amended affirmative defense fails as an
affirmative defense, on its
face, based on the facts pled and alleged, and thus should
be struck . As pled, it does not
constitute affirmative matter that avoids the legal
effect of or defeats the cause of action set
forth in the complaint, for the following reasons :
(1) Respondent had notice and knowledge, well
in advance of commencing construction of the facility,
that the Illinois EPA believed that the
location and operation of the proposed swine production
facilities must be carefully evaluated
due to the potential for odor emissions to result in violations
of the Illinois Environmental
Protection Act
; (2) the Complainant does not have dictatorial
powers to stop an operation well in
advance of the
occurrence of a
possible violation, and does not have permitting authority for the
2
siting or construction of livestock management facilities, thus, the agency was not in a position
to stop the construction (which was a moving target in and of itself, as is obvious from the April
23, 1998 inspection report, which states, "The livestock waste management system for this
swine farm has been modified several times since the original design . The system has evolved
as follows : . . . "); (3) despite having knowledge of the potential violation, Respondent
proceeded at its own peril, thereby eliminating the availability of laches as an affirmative
defense .
Statement of Fact and Arqument in Support of Motion to Strike
7.
This motion is supported by an affidavit of James Kammueller, attached hereto
.
The September 4, 1996 letter from James Kammueller to Doug Lenhart, and the May 20, 1997
letter from James Kammueller to James Baird, are attached to the affidavit as Exhibits 1 and 2
respectively
.
8.
As set forth in James Kammueller's affidavit, the letter sent to Doug Lenhart,
dated September 4, 1996, concerned a proposed facility that was to be located at a different
site which was in Peoria County . That facility was never built . However, as is evident from the
exhibits, the content of the letter is identical to the content of the letter sent to James Baird
.
Therefore, Respondent Murphy received identical notification of the Illinois EPA's concerns
pertinent to large swine production facilities as did The Highlands, well in advance of the
initiation of construction of The Highlands facility .
9.
Mr
. Kammueller sent these letters in response to his office being contacted by
the respective parties, alerting the Illinois EPA to the construction of large swine operations in
given locations
. Based on the description provided, Mr . Kammueller sent letters to the
respective parties indicating that the location and operation of such large swine production
facilities must be carefully evaluated due to the potential for odor emissions to result in
3
violations of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act
. As stated in the letter, in that the Illinois
EPA had neither siting or construction permit authority, it could not approve or disapprove the
proposed location and construction
. Nonetheless, the Illinois EPA was acting to alert the
parties of the potential to violate the Act, given the description provided by each party
.
10 .
The letters stated, "The description you provided of the new facility indicates that
a potential for possible odor problems does exist due to the magnitude of the operation
.
Careful consideration should be given to the location, waste management, and odor control
methods ." Exhibits 1 and 2 attached to affidavit of James Kammueller
. Mr. Kammueller's
letters specifically cite to Section 9(a) of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act, 415 ILCS
5/9(a), which is the air pollution prohibition provisions
. Mr. Kammueller's letters state, " . . .
it is
essential to understand that compliance with these siting provisions [referring to regulatory
setbacks] affords no protection from possible enforcement action if the livestock operation
causes air pollution in violation of Section 9(a) of the Illinois Environmental Protect Act
. The
setback distances contained in Subtitle E are minimum distances and are not adequate to
ensure that odor problems will not occur at some time due to the many variable involved
.
Please be advised that the Agency has documented livestock waste related odor problems at
distances far greater than 1/4 mile ."
11 .
The Illinois EPA only has the authority granted to it by the General Assembly
pursuant to the Illinois Environmental Protection Act, and the Act does not give the agency
authority to stop someone from doing something prior to the action being a violation of the Act
except in the permitting authority
. The siting permit authority for livestock management facilities
does not lie with the Illinois EPA but with the Illinois Department of Agriculture pursuant to the
Illinois Livestock Management Facility Act . As stated in Mr
. Kammueller's letters, "As we
discussed, the Agency does not presently issue construction permits for livestock waste
4
handling facilities and cannot give formal siting approval for livestock management or waste
handling facilities ." The state would not proceed with any form of common law cause of action
or statutory authority for immediate injunctive relief, in a situation such as this, where there is
yet no actual violation or imminent threat of substantial danger to the environment or public
health because it is yet to be seen if the owners and operators can locate, build and manage
the facility in a manner that will comply with the Act
.
12.
Respondent's claim that the Illinois EPA did not conduct an inspection of the
facility until April 23, 1998, is false
. At least two inspections were conducted prior to the April
1998 inspection, one on August 26, 1997 and another on October 16, 1997 (Respondent has
been provided these inspection reports in response to discovery requests) . See affidavit of
James Kammueller, Exhibits 3 and 4 . As is obvious from the April 23, 1998 inspection report
(See affidavit of James Kammueller, Exhibit 5), the design of the waste management system
was constantly evolving during the time of construction of this facility . The report states, "The
livestock waste management system for this swine farm has been modified several times since
the original design . The system has evolved as follows : . . . "
The type of the waste handling
system, and the management of that system, are indeed among the variables that impact
whether or not the facility will be able to comply with the requirements of the Illinois
Environmental Protection Act
. The inspection report includes a review of the operation of the
Bion system, which required significant management, including the addition of various bacteria
to ensure proper function
. So in addition to finally determining what the design of the system
would be, proper management of the system was an important variable at this facility .
Mr .
Kammueller's letters clearly drew the Respondent's attention to the existence and significance
of the many variables that impact odor control .
13.
The April 23, 1998 inspection was conducted in response to neighbor complaints
5
of unreasonable odor coming from the facility. See Affidavit of James Kammueller, Exhibit 5 .
Hogs were first brought to The Highlands facility in December 1997 . At the time of the
inspection owner/operator Doug Baird confirmed that a strong swine waste odor had been
produced during start-up of the waste handling/treatment system
.
14.
Respondent clearly had knowledge, well in advance of the time of construction of
the facility and the time it initiated operations, that the Illinois EPA believed the location and
operation of The Highlands facility had the potential to result in violation of the Illinois
Environmental Protection Act . Yet, Respondent proceeded with its construction and operations
.
The Respondent's actions certainly suggest that the Respondent had a purpose to proceed
irrespective of the consequences . It proceeded at it's own peril . Where the circumstances
indicate that the party knowingly violated a restriction or a right and pressed ahead, suggesting
a purpose to proceed irrespective of the consequences,
laches may not be used as an
affirmative defense, Pettey v. First National Bank of Geneva, 225 III .App.3d 539, 588 N .E.2d
412 (2d Dist 1992)
; Fick v. Burnham, 251 III . App
. 333 (1929)
.
WHEREFORE, on the foregoing grounds, Complainant respectfully requests that the
Board strike Respondent Murphy's Amended Affirmative Defense .
Respectfully submitted,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
ex rel . LISA MADIGAN, Attorney General
of the State of Illinois
MATTHEW J . DUNN, Chief
Environmental Enforcement Division
BY:
JANE E. MCBRIDE
Assistant Attorney General
500 South Second Street
Springfield, Illinois 62706
(217) 782-9031
6
STATE OF ILLINOIS
)
ss
COUNTY OF
PEORIA
)
AFFIDAVIT
I, JAMES E
. KAMMUELLER, after being duly sworn and upon oath, state as follows
:
1
.
I am employed by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ("Illinois EPA")
Bureau of Water Pollution Control -Field Operations Section, as manager of its Peoria Regional
Office .
2.
As part of my duties with the Illinois EPA, I perform site investigations to assess
whether environmental and/or public health threats exist
. Upon formal request, I also review
pleadings to be filed by the Attorney General's Office to ensure veracity and accuracy with
investigation records, evidence gathered, as well as my own personal observations and
knowledge .
3 .
In my capacity as manager of the Bureau of Water Pollution Control-Field
Operations Section, Peoria Regional Office, I supervise all activities of the Bureau of Water
field operations conducted at the Illinois EPA Peoria Regional Office
. These activities include
the investigation of wastewater discharges and releases, and odor air pollution complaints
regarding farm and agricultural sites and facilities
. I have worked for the Illinois EPA as a field
inspector for over 35 years, and throughout that time have been involved in field investigations
of environmental complaints concerning farms and agricultural facilities
. I have personally
conducted and supervised complaint investigations and site inspections of The Highlands
. The
custody of the Illinois EPA's field file on this facility is maintained under my supervision
.
4 .
I authored two letters to principals of both The Highlands and Murphy Farms
setting out my office's belief that the location and operation of swine production facilities must
be carefully evaluated due to the potential for odor emissions to result in violations of the
Illinois Environmental Protection Act
. One of the letters is addressed to Doug Lenhart of
Murphy Farms, dated September 4, 1996 regarding his proposed Peoria County swine
production facility that was ultimately never built
. The other letter is dated May 20, 1997, and
addressed to James Baird, a member of The Highlands, LLC
. True, correct and accurate
copies of these two letters are attached, respectively, to this affidavit as Exhibits 1 and 2
.
5.
Eric Ackerman and Todd Huson, both who work for the Illinois EPA under my
direct supervision, conducted construction inspections of The Highlands facility on August 26,
1997 and October 16, 1997
. True, correct and accurate copies of the reports of the inspections
conducted on those dates are attached, respectively, hereto as Exhibits 3 and 4
.
6 .
On April 23, 1998, Eric Ackerman and Todd Huson conducted an inspection at
The Highlands in response to complaints from neighbors of the facility of unreasonably
offensive odors emanating from the facility
. A true, correct and accurate copy of the report of
the April 23, 1998 inspection is attached hereto as Exhibit 5 .
Further, Affiant sayeth not
.
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this /9 day
of
,4PAI1 ,
2006 .
NOTARY PUBLIC
D
OFRCIAL SEAL
No" Pubk
saof
ns
Mnab
/2000
JAMES KAMMUELLER
2
State of Illinois
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mary
A. Cade, Director
5415 North University, Peoria, IL 61614
309/693-5463
September
4, 1996
PEORIA
COUNTY -Murphy Family Farms
(Near Elmwood)
Proposed Livestock Facility
Mr
. Doug Lenhart
Director of Illinois Operations
Murphy Family Farms
Post Office Box 393
121 South Washington
Nevada, Missouri 64772
Dear Mr . Lenhart
:
Thank you for your. July 5 and August 14, 1996 telephone inquiries
to Eric Ackerman of this office . You called to discuss the
proposed construction of your new swine production facility and
livestock waste handling system in Peoria County near Elmwood
.
As was discussed, the Agency does not presently issue
construction permits for livestock waste handling facilities and
cannot give formal siting approval for livestock management or
waste handling facilities .
Rules
As you
and
know,
Regulations,
amendments
Title
to the
35,
Illinois
Subtitle
Pollution
E : Agriculture
Control BoardRelated
Pollution require that new livestock facilities be located at
least one-quarter mile from the nearest non-farm residence and
one-half mile from the nearest populated area . However, it is
essential to understand that compliance with these siting
provisions affords no protection from possible enforcement action
if the livestock operation causes air pollution in violation of
Section 9(a) of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act
. The
setback distances contained in Subtitle E are minimum distances
and are not adequate to ensure that odor problems will not occur
at some time due to the many variables involved . Please be
advised that the Agency has documented livestock waste related
odor problems at distances far greater than 1/4 mile .
The description you provided of the new facility indicates that a
potential for possible odor problems does exist due to the
magnitude of the operation . Careful consideration should be
Prinidon Reryc~
Exhibit 1
PEORIA
(Near Elmwood)
COUNTY
-Murphy Family Farms
Proposed Livestock Facility
-2-
given to location, waste management, and odor control methods .
For informational purposes, we would also like to advise that the
American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE) has provided.
some guidance for locating new livestock operations . ASAE
Engineering Practice #379 states in part
:
"4
.1
Although neither a complete understanding of odor
production nor fully adequate techniques for odor
control are currently available, the following
managerial procedures have proven helpful .
4 .1 .1
. Locate a livestock operation at a reasonable
distance from residential areas, places of employment,
institutions and other areas frequented by persons
other than the operator of the animal enterprise
.
Although
. distances have not been established beyond
which complaints are invalid, it is desirable to stay
1600m (1 mile) from housing developments and
400 - SOOm
(1/4 to 1/2 mile) from neighboring residences
. Wind
direction and velocity, humidity, topography,
temperature, and unique meteorological conditions (such
as inversions) affect odor transport and' detection
."
If you have further questions or comments, please feel free to
contact this office
. We appreciate your concern
regarding
compliance with applicable environmental regulations
.
Very truly yours,
James
1a ~
E .
z/~~~
Kammueller,
,-)
4&/
Manager
~
Peoria Regional Office
Division of Water Pollution Control
Bureau of Water
JEK/EOA/lo
Att
; -Subtitle E
cc : David Innskeep, Elmwood
bcc : A .G . Taylor
Dan Heacock, Permits
ZD
Ieoria
C/FOS
Files&
RU
L
. Ray
IN&A State of Illinois
ls_C~k I I
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mary A. Gade, Director
5415 North University, Peoria, IL 616
309/693-5463
May 20, 1997
KNOB COUNTY
-Baird Sow Farm
(Near Williamsfield)
Proposed Livestock Facility
Mr . James Baird
Baird Sow Farm
1122 Knox Highway 18
Williamsfield, Illinois 61489
Dear Mr . Baird
;
Thank you for your May 6, 1997 telephone conversation with Eric
Ackerman of this office
. Based on that conversation, we
understand that Baird Sow Farm plans to construct a new swine
production facility and livestock waste handling system in Knox
County near Williamsfield . As you know, the Agency does not
issue formal siting approval for livestock management or waste
handling facilities .
For your information, current Illinois Pollution Control Board
Rules and Regulations, Title 35, Subtitle E : Agriculture Related
Pollution requires that new livestock facilities be located at
least one-quarter mile from the nearest non-farm residence and
one-half mile from the nearest populated area . However, it is
essential to understand that compliance with these siting
provisions affords no protection from possible enforcement action
if the livestock operation causes air pollution in violation of
Section
9(a)
of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act . The
setback distances contained in Subtitle E are minimum distances
and are not adequate to ensure that odor problems will not occur
at some time due to the many variables involved, including the
size of the operation . Please be advised that the Agency has
documented livestock waste related odor problems at distances far
greater than one-quarter mile .
The description provided of your proposed new swine facility
indicates that a potential for possible odor problems does exist
due to the magnitude of the operation
. Careful consideration
should be given to location, waste management and adequate odor
control methods and technology . For informational purposes, we
would also like to advise that the American Society of
Exhibit 2
a
HANCOCK(Near
Carthage)COUNTY
-LittleProposed
Timber,LivestockLLC
Facility
-2-
Agriculturallocating
new livestockEngineers
operations_(ASAE)
has provided
ASAE Engineering
some guidance
Practicefor
#379 states in part ;
'4
.1 Although neither a complete understanding of odor
production nor fully adequate techniques for odor control
are currently available, the following managerial procedures
have proven helpful .
4 .1 .1
. Locate a livestock operation at a reasonable distance
from residential areas, places of employment, institutions
and other areas frequented by persons other than the
operator of the animal enterprise
. Although distances have
not been established beyond which complaints are invalid, it
is desirable to stay 1600m (one mile) from housing
developments and 400-800m (one-quarter to one-half mile)
from neighboring residences . Wind direction and velocity,
humidity,
conditions
topography,
(such as inversions)
temperature,
affect
and unique
odor transport
meteorologicaland
detection ."
These guidelines should also be considered as minimum distances .
Please be advised that the Agency has been involved with
situations where offensive odors were reportedly detected two to
three miles from swine production and/or waste handling
facilities . Therefore, we recommend locating larger livestock
facilities at greater setback distances than the minimum
distances mentioned above .
If you have further questions or comments, please feel free to
contact this office .
Very
i
truly yours,
James E, Kammueller, Manager
Peoria Regional Office
Division of Water Pollution Control
Bureau of Water
JEK/EOA/pg
bcc : Tim Kluge
nyPC/FOS and RU
Peoria Files
Inspection Report
Subject:
KNOX COUNTY
-Murphy Family Farms, Inc .
(Near Williamsfield)
The Highlands, LLC
Initial Inspection
To:
DWPC/FOS & RU
From:
Eric O
. Ackerman
DWPC-FOS, Peoria Region
Date :
August 26, 1997
IEPA-FOS-Peoria
On th° above date Todd Huson and I conducted a brief inspection of the Murphy Family
Farms, Inc/Highlands, LLC swine facility in Knox County
. The facility is located south of
Williamsfield in the NE %
,
Section 10, TI ON, R4E (Elba Township) in Knox County .
Observations
This swine farm is under construction
. Four or five large, graded areas were observed for
total swine confinement buildings
. A significant amount of earthwork and excavation has been
completed
. Two bulldozers and an earthmover were active at the site
. The two cell lagoon
system is constructed and nearly complete
. See attached Figure 1 for general layout .
This report is submitted for your information .
Eric O. Ackerman
Att:
-Figure 1
cc:
-Peoria Files
a
:\Iivcstck\murphy\rcport1
.97
Exhibit 3
lagoon cell #2
lagoon cell #1
a
:\livestck\murphy\fig 197 .drw
Ioters~te 74
Figure 1
. General Layout of Murphy Family Farms, Inc ./
Highlands, LLC Swine Farm on August 26, 1997
.
NE 1/4
Section 10
T1ON, R4E
Knox County
Eric Ackerman
August 26, 1997
r-
I
I
I
L
i
L
r
I
L
r
I
area graded for
swine confinement buildings
/105
%0PA
0
no scale
trh
ant : Site Diagram
CC : Peoria Files
Tim. Kluge
Memorandum -
Inspection Notes
`)ub,lect
: Knox County
The Highlands LLC
. 3600 Sow Farm
(near VVilliamstield)
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Construction Inspection
To :
DNVPC/FOS & RU
From
: Todd R Huson, DWPC-FOS
. Peoria Region
Date :
October 16, 1997
Interviewed
: Douglas Baird, Owner/Operator
Accompanied
: Eric Ackerman, DWPC-FOS, Peoria Region
On October 16 . 1997 . a brief construction was performed at The Highlands LLC (3600
Sow Farm) under construction
. Owner/Operator Douglas Baird was interviewed
. This swine
farm is currently being constructed just south of Williamsfield in Knox County .
Wastewater generated in the gestation . breeding, farrowing, nursery, and finishing
buildings will reportedly be diverted from the 16" deep building pits through a solids separator
(filter press in separate building) to a two-cell lagoon system . Proposed cell 41 has a surface area
of 2 .9 acres and a volume of 11 .1 MG at the 9 foot maximum operating depth . Proposed cell #2
has a surface area of 3-6 acres and a volume of 13 .6 MG at the 9 foot maximum operating depth .
The effluent from cell =~2 (estimated at 2 .5 MG per year) will be recycled to the buildings (pit
recharge water) or spray applied to agricultural land (irrigation) . Solids from the filter press will
be stored in a separate building then applied to agricultural land.
The majority of the earthwork associated with the two lagoon cells has been completed .
However
. the underground transfer piping between the cells has not been installed . Both cells
were reportedly constructed with a 12 inch clay liner (compacted to 95%% of the maximum dry
density) During this inspection
. ponded storm water was observed in both cells . A synthetic
liner or riprap will reportedly be placed along the top of the interior slopes to address erosion
.
The concrete pits for the gestation, breeding, and farrowing buildings are currently being
constructed
. The structures will be constructed as soon as these pits are completed . The nursery .
finishing
. offlce.'garage . solids separator
. and solids storage buildings have not been started .
i
Todd R Huson
Exhibit 4
LAGOON CELL #2
396 ft X 396 ft - 156,816
.9.1713.8
.0 ..1
13.6 ma (1,920,050 N") 0 9 N d
. .o
LAGOON CELL #1
291 ft X 431 ft - 125,421 9-ft
(2.9 .0 . .1
11 .1 MG (1,484,930 cv-ft) 0 9 ft d..P
II
SOLIDS
STORAGE
BUILDING
SOLIDS
I
SEPARATOR
BUILDING
(MIER "ESSI
THE HIGHLANDS LLC
3600 SOW FARM
(OWNERIOPERATOR -
DOUGLAS & JAMES BAIRD)
(CONTRACT - MURPHY FAMILY FARMS)
OFFICE/GARAGE
sz FT x 40 FT
GESTATION BUILDING
78 FT X 573 FT
FARROWING BUILDING
61 K X 537 FT
BREEDING BUILDING
70 FT X 341 F
. .
. . . . . . . .
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .
.
. . .
.
.
.
. .
. . . . . . .
PROPOSED FARROWING BUILDING
I
NURSARY FINISHING
BUILDING
BUILDING
26FT x 6s rr
1_111T
53 "X171FTVrX 171 - I
Date : Oct 16, 1997
Time : App . 10
:00 AM
Photographed By :
Todd R Huson, DWPC/FOS
Location : (WPC)
The Highlands, LLC
3600 Sow Farm - Owned
& Operated by D
. Baird
(near Williamsfield
in Peoria County)
Comments :
Construction of new
3600 sow facility
Gestation Building
(building foudation -
pits and floor slab)
Date
: Oct 16, 1997
Time : App
. 10 :00 AM
Photographed By
:
Todd R Huson, DWPC/FOS
Location : (WPC)
The Highlands, LLC
3600 Sow Farm - Owned
& Operated by D
. Baird
(near Williamsfield
in Peoria County)
Comments :
Construction of new
3600 sow facility
Gestation Building
(building foudation -
pits and floor slab)
Ole_10~^
Date : Oct 16, 1997
Time :
App .
10 :00 AM
Photographed By :
Todd R Huson, DWPC/FOS
Location : (WPC)
The Highlands, LLC
3600 Sow Farm - Owned
& Operated by D . Baird
in
(near
Peoria
WilliamsfieldCounty)
Comments :
Construction of new
3600 sow facility
Breeding Building
pits
(building
and floor
foudationslab) -
DateTime
:
:
AppOct .
16,
10 :00
1997AM
Photographed By :
Todd R Huson, DWPC/FOS
Location : (WPC)
The Highlands, LLC
&
3600
Operated
Sow Farmby
D- .
OwnedBaird
(near Williamsfield
in Peoria County)
Comments :
Construction
3600 sow facilityof
new
Breeding Building
(building foudation
-
pits and floor slab)
Pay
E
z l,
C.
Date : Oct 16, 1997
Time : App . 10 :00 AM
Photographed By :
Todd R Huson, DWPC/FOS
Location : (WPC)
The Highlands, LLC
3600 Sow Farm - Owned
&
(near
Operated
Williamsfieldby
D . Baird
in Peoria County)
Comments :
Construction
3600 sow facilityof
new
Farrowing Building
(building foudation -
pits and floor slab)
Date : Oct 16, 1997
Time : App . 10 :00 AM
Photographed By :
Todd R Huson, DWPC/FOS
Location : (WPC)
The Highlands, LLC
3600 Sow Farm
- Owned
& Operated by D . Baird
(near Williamsfield
in Peoria County)
Comments
:
Construction of new
3600 sow facility
Farrowing Building
(building foudation
-
pits and floor slab)
DateTime
:
:
AppOct .
16,10:301997AM
Photographed By :
Todd R Huson, DWPC/FOS
Location : (WPC)
The Highlands, LLC
3600 Sow Farm - Owned
& Operated by D . Baird
(near Williamsfield
in Peoria County)
Comments :
Construction of new
3600 sow facility
Wastewater treatment
two-cell
(2
.9 acre
lagoon
cell #1)system
Date : Oct 16, 1997
Time : App . 10
:30 AM.
Photographed By :
Todd R Huson, DWPC/FOS
LocationThe
Highlands,
: (WPC)
LLC
3600 Sow Farm - Owned
&
(near
Operated
Williamsfieldby
D . Baird
in Peoria County)
Comments :
Construction of new
3600 sow facility
Wastewater treatment
two-cell lagoon system
(2 .9 acre cell #1)
Date : Oct 16, 1997
Time : App . 10 :30 AM
Photographed By
:
Todd R Huson, DWPC/FOS
Location : (WPC)
The Highlands, LLC
3600 Sow Farm - Owned
&
(near
Operated
Williamsfieldby
D . Baird
in Peoria County)
Comments :
Construction
3600 sow facilityof
new
Wastewater treatment
two-cell lagoon system
(3 .6 acre cell #2)
Date : Oct 16, 1997
Time : App . 10 :30 AM
Photographed By
:
Todd R Huson, DWPC/FOS
Location : (WPC)
The Highlands, LLC
3600 Sow Farm -
Owned
& Operated by D . Baird
(near Williamsfield
in Peoria County)
Comments :
Construction
3600 sow facilityof
new
1
Wastewater treatment
two-cell lagoon system
3
.6 acre cell #2)
DateTime
:
:
AppOct .
16,10:301997AM
Photographed By :
Todd R Huson, DWPC/FOS
Location : (WPC)
The Highlands, LLC
&
3600
Operated
Sow Farm
by
-D
.
OwnedBaird
(near Williamsfield
in Peoria County)
Comments :
Construction of new
3600 sow facility
Wastewater treatment
two-cell lagoon system
(berm between cells)
Date : Oct 16, 1997
Time : App . 10 :30 AM
Photographed
Todd R Huson,
By :
DWPC/FOS
Location : (WPC)
The
3600
Highlands,
Sow Farm -LLCOwned
& Operated by D . Baird
(near Williamsfield
in Peoria County)
Comments :
Construction of new
3600 sow facility
Wastewater t reatment
two-cell lagoon system
(stockpiled PVC pipe)
pgyz 6
G~
Subject_ Knox County
(near Williamstield)
Memorandum - Inspection Notes
The Highlands LLC, 361)0 Sow Farm
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Reconnaissance/Construction Inspection
To : DWPCIFOS & RU
From
: Todd R Huson, DWPC-FOS, Peoria Region
Date: April 23, 1998
Interviewed : Douglas Baird, Owner/Operator
Accompanied : Eric Ackerman, DWPC-FOS, Peoria Region
On April 23, 1998, a reconnaissance and construction inspection was performed at the
new Highlands LLC (3600 Sow Farm) . Owner/Operator Douglas Baird was interviewed . This
farrow to ween swine farm is located just south of Williamsfeld in Knox County. The majority
of the new buildings have been constructed, including the office/garage, gestation building,
breeding building, and farrowing building . The initial hogs were brought on site and these units
were placed in service on December 21, 1997 . The construction of the nursery and finishing
buildings has also been started . This farm is reportedly being expanded from a 3600 sow to a
7,300 sow operation through the addition of a second farrowing building .
The livestock waste management system for this swine farm has been modified several
times since the onginal design . The system has evolved as follows :
1 . single waste stabilization lagoon
2 . single covered anaerobic lagoon with flared gas provision
3 . solids separator (filter press) followed by two cell facultative lagoon system
~
. multi-cell aerated/nonacrated biological treatment system.
The two-cell lagoon system was essentially completed with the exception of the transfer
piping, when the waste management system was altered to the multi-cell biological treatment
system . Two additional small cells were quickly constructed and the majority of the transfer
piping was installed . Each cell was reportedly constructed with a 12 inch clay liner
. However.
only the initial cells of the multi-cell treatment system were operational when waste was diverted
to the system on December 28 . 1997
.
The multi-cell biological treatment system was designed by BION Technologies
. Inc . .
=f= 17th Street . Suite 3310. Denver Colorado 80202
. 303/29+-0730
. BION Technologies will
reportedly operate this system through regular monthly visits
. This system consists of a small
aerated cell (Bioreactor 1)
. a small nonaerated solids settling cell (Solids Ecoreactor), a small
aerated cell (Bioreactor T2) . a large aerated storage cell (Bioreactor
43) .
and a large nonaerated
_.orase cell (Polishing Ecoreactor)
.
Exhibit 5
N
N',
U
N
N
U
Aeration is provided in Bioreactor #1 by two Aeromix Tornado aspirating surface
aerators . Both of these aerators were operational
. Aeration will be provided in both Bioreator #2
and Bioreactor #3 by one strategically located Aeromix Tornado aspirating surface aerator . This
aerator will be installed as soon as the water level in this cell reaches the design depth (9') in the
existing lagoon cell #1 . Each Aeromix surface aerator is driven by a 5-hp motor and will
reportedly deliver 2
.5 #02/bhp-hr under optimum conditions .
~'
Wastewater generated in the gestation, breeding, farrowing, nursery, and finishing
buildings is collected in 16" deep pits
. These pits are drained through pull plugs
. The gestation
building has 16 plugs, breeding building has 16 plugs, farrowing building has 16 plugs, nursery
building has 1 plug, and finishing building has 2 plugs . The influent loading will reportedly be
controlled by pulling plugs and recirculating recharge water according to a schedule developed
by BION Technologies. Each building will be drained on a specific day of the week . The
schedule was based on pulling the plugs when the water level reaches 10" in the pits (6" of
recharge water and 4" of livestock wastewater) .
Solids from the Solids Ecoreactor will harvested, dried
. and applied to agricultural land .
Treated wastewater from Bioreactor #2 will be recycled to the building as pit recharge water or
diverted into Bioreactor #3 or the Polishing Ecoreactor and spray applied to agricultural land
(irrigation) . The treated wastewater is being recycled to minimize water usage
.
L
Bioreactor cell # 1 and the Solids Ecoreactor cell were constructed just south of the
existing lagoon cell #I
. Bioreactor cell #2 and Bioreactor cell #3 were consolidated in existing
agoon cell #1
. These bioreactor cells are separated by a floating baffle . This baffle will be
installed as soon as the water level in this cell reaches the design depth (9'). Existing lagoon cell
was converted into the Polishing Ecoreactor .
During recent months . several livestock and livestock waste odor complaints have been
received by DWPC/FOS Peoria Region . These complaints ranged from '/--
to 1 V2
miles away
from the farm
. Owner/Operator Douglas Baird confirmed that a strong swine waste odor has
been produced during the start-up period for this system
. A strong swine waste odor was noted
near the multi-cell treatment system during this inspection
. The star-up of this treatment system
will reportedly not be completed until all cells reach their design operating level
.
S
trv
Art'
Site Diagram
N
Bion (Description . Schedule & Schematic)
CC Peoria Files
Tim Kluge
C
Todd R Huson
BION TECHNOLOGIES
B ;ONtN
.a 0 c
.&
0AM,M001
LAGOON CELL #2
POLISHING ECOBEACTOR
INONAERATED STORAGE CELLI
31i6lI % 396 11 - 156.016 q It O.6 c-L
13.6
MG 11.020 .5. 1.
III @ 9 11 1,
LAGOON CELL #1
BIOREACTOR 131NONAERATED CELLI
29, 11 z 43111 • 125.43 It 12.9 .cu.1
91 1 MG 11464930 cc -In @ 9
u0
f 4
ft i
7
FLOATINGHYFALONBAFnF
7
I
® .F pM
BIOREACTDR(2
IAE
.EF0 CELL
SOLIDS ECOREACTOfl
BIOBEACTOR /t
INDNAEMIEO SETTLING CELLI
o .
p unr®L4a41046
~pFBA7FD CfLLI
THE HIGHLANDS LLC
3600 SOW FARM
(OWNER/OPERATOR - DOUGLAS & JAMES BAIRD)
(CONTRACT - MURPHY FAMILY FARMS)
(WASTE MANAGEMENT - BION TECHNOLOGIES)
OFFICE/GARAGE
52 FT X 90 FT
GESTATION BUILDING
78 FT X 578 FT
FARROWING BUILDING
61 FT X 597 FT
BREEDING BUILDING
76 FT X 341 FT
PROPOSED FARROWING BUILDING
BUILDINGNURSARY ( FINISHINGBUILDING
:
26 FT X 66 FT
53
FT X 171 FT
I
O
0
2I
w
I
9
0
0
TECHNOLOGIES
BIN
./4 r
Proposed Pit RE%±arge Schedule (into Bioreacwr 1, B1) for start-up, including recirculation from
Temporary Storage Area (TSA)
:
Monday :
Tuesday :
Wednesday :
Thursday :
rriday :
Saturday ;
Sunday :
16 BG plugs (-64,000 gal)
8 HC plugs (-53,600 gal)
recimilate from TSA (50,000 to 70,000 gal, as desired)
8 HC plugs (-53
.600 gal)
re
6rculate from TSA (50,000 to 70,000 gal, as desired)
12 FAR, 2 FIN, 1 NUR plugs (-68,500 gal)
recirculate from TSA (50 .000 to 70,000 gal, as desired)
April 02, 1998
For the recirrtaation days, it is preferred to recircvlate through the pits that will be pulled the next
day, rather than ptanping directly into B1 from the TSA . For example
. on Sunday recirculate the
water through the 16 Breeding and Gestation house pits, then pull these plugs on monday
. This will
deliver a steadier wastestrwm to the System and minimize the odor . Please keep in mind the sooner
we establish the aerated recycle loop from the curtained Bioreactor 2 area, the sooner we will
maxirni .ze the nmrzznt handling and odor control efficiency
. Also please maintain the 7' water depth
currently in B1, do not lower or raise for now, except for the surges when recirculatog and/or
pulling
plugs
. Call if you have any questions . concerns, comments or suggestions . Thanks .
TGTa` P.02
,NC
819 C S4Un ThL SVHi
Sm,Mrwld, No" Care]"
1919) 93430cs
iSaa) 2948ION (Denver)
,919) 9346218/a.
27577
TO :
SUBJECT
:
FROM :
Doug Baird
Stan-up pit recharge and recyde/recirculstion schedule
Steve Pagano
Based on the set of plans we received for
the buildings, you have the following facilities
:
1 . Breeding
and Gestation (BG)
16 plugs
-4,000 gaUpull ®
10" pit water depth
2 . Farrowing
(FAR)
16 plugs
-3,000 gaUpull ® 10" pit water depth
3 . Heau:hndc (HC)
16 plugs
-6,700 gal/pull 4 10" pit water depth
4 . Finishing (FIN)
2 plugs
-8,000 gaUpull 4 10" pit water depth
5 . Nursery (NUR)
1 plug
-4,500 gal/pull @ 10" pit water depth
Bio-solid-Production Loop
--
Aerator
r
re fin 0- e,0110
Livestock
I
Barns
t<
BioreactorHI
Recycle
Water for Flushing Manure
Transfer Pump
t.
t
Polishing Ecoreactor
J
Transfer Pump
7
,
:
Solids Ecoreactors
Harvested Bio-solids Pad
scope
,
S1opc_
Aerator
Floating Baffle
(tQrusalon
r
0 a
Bioreactor 3/
Temporary
Storage Area
L.
U-1
r I
U
,.
r~Q
A!r
I
Aerator
B ioreactor H2
Transfer Pump
n
--
Polishing Process (optional)
-B10
TECHN0LnGIES
RION TECIINOLQGIES.INC-
619-C South Third Slrocl
Smithfield, NC 27577
Phone(9j4)934-106(,
Bion NMST"r Sytem
Process Flow I
'a ra
DawnBy jD
L .g...
e 1J,,
.
C1 cked By. II) .,
