PCB No. 08-95

(Appeal of Agency Action)

NOTICE OF FILING

I

BEFORE TIIE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

UNITED CI1j'Y OF YORKVILLE. A

)

MUNlCIPAU CORPORATION,

)

!)

I

,

Petitioner,

~

v.

)

ILLINOISPROTECTI

E~VIRONMENTAL

N AGENCY, and HAMMAN

)

~

FARMS,

)

Respondents.

I

TO: SEE ATfACHED SERVICE LIST

PLEA~E

TAKE NOTICE that on July 31,2008, we electronically filed with the Clerk of

I

the lllinois P llution Control Board. Respondent Hamman Farms' Brief in Response to Hearing

Officer'sJut

24,2008 Order, copies of which are attached hereto and hereby served upon you.

Dated:

Jill! 31, 2008

Charles F. HJlsten

Nicola Nelso*

Hinshaw

&

Culbertson LLP

100 Park

Av~ue

P.O. Box 1389

Rockford, IL

~1105-1389

815-490-490(1)

Respectfully submitted,

On behalfofHAMMAN FARMS

lsi

Charles F. Helsten

One ofIts Attorneys

70566464vl 890519

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 31, 2008

---

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

UNITED

~

OF YORKVILLE, A

MUNICIP

I

CORPORATION,

I

Complainant,

I

v'

PROTECTI

~LINOIS E~VIRONMENTAL

N AGENCY and HAMMAN

FARMS,

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

PCB No. 08-95

(Appeal of Agency Action)

RESPONDENT HAMMAN FARMS' BRIEF IN RESPONSE

TO HEARING OFFICER'SJULY 24, 2008 ORDER

NOW/COMES Respondent, HAMMAN FARMS, by and through its attorneys, Charles

F. Helsten

an~

I

HINSHAW

&

CULBERTSON LLP, and for its Brief

in

Response to the Hearing

Officer's

JUI~

24, 2008 Order, states as follows:

BACKGROUND

This Jction arises from a third-party appeal of the IEPA's calculation of the appropriate

rate for

apPI~ng

landscape waste to the fields at Hamman Fanus.

In

April 2008, Hamman

Fanns reque1ed that

~

!EPA consider the fann's unique soil characteristics and crop needs and

determme

th]'

appropnate agronomIC rate, pursuant to 415 ILeS 5/21(q), which authonzes the

Agency to c culate the proper agronomic rate for farms where the

land's soil characteristics or

crop needs jJtify a rate higher than the statutory default rate of 20 tons per acre per year.

[d.

I

I

Hamnjlan Fanus and IEPA have both moved to dismiss this action, based on the

I

Petitioner's ltck of standing and the Board's lack ofjurisdiction to hear such an appeal, which

Petitioner incorrectly characterizes

in

its briefs as an appeal of the granting of a "permit."

On JJl

Y

23, 2008, Hamman Farms filed a Motion for Hearing Officer's Ruling on

Discovery, iJ which Hamman Farms concurred with the Agency's position that, even if the

Board had

jlsdiction over this action, discovery is clearly inappropriate

in

a ''permitappeal,"

70569633v1 890519

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 31, 2008

---

where the

onl~

infonnation relevant to the Board'sreview is the record before the Agency at the

time it made its decision.

See generally,

Hamman Farms' July 23, 2008 Motion and July 24,

onse to Hamman Farms' Motion seeking a ruling on discovery, the Hearing

that the parties file briefs "elaborating on the information they believe is

ant, discoverable, and admissible in this proceeding that was not before the

time the permit was issued." (Hearing Officer'sJuly

24,2008 Order at 1).

The brrden of showing that such information exists is, pursuant to Board precedent, on

the Petitione seeking discovery.

(See, e.g., Des Plaines Watershed,

cited in the Hearing

Officer's Orr). Nonetheless, Respondent states affirmatively that there is no relevant,

discoverable nformation which was not before the Agency at the time it made its decision.

I.

Relev nt Factors in a Request Pursuant to 415 ILeS S/21(q)

As a

eshold matter, it should be remembered that no "permit" was issued to Hamman

Farms for th application

of landscape waste. Under 415 ILCS 5/21(q), no permit is necessary

for a farm

to pply landscape waste to its fields at agronomic rates.

Id.

at 5/21 (q)(2). The term

"agronomic r te

U

is, by definition, "the application of not more than 20 tons per acre per year,

except that t1e Agency may allow a higher

rate

for individual sites where the owner or operator

has

demonstr~ted

to the Agency that the site'ssoil characteristics or crop needs require a higher

rate." 415

mes 5/21.

In

April 2008, Hamman Farms requested that the Agency consider the

fann's soil Jharacteristics and crop needs, pursuant to 415 ILCS

5/21,

and determine the

appropriate

1

1

ronomic rate for its fields.

Beca . e the Agency's calculation

of the appropriate agronomic rate came in response to

I

a request un1er 415 ILCS 5121(q), the sole factors the Agency had to consider were the soil

2

70569633vl 8905]9

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 31, 2008

---

I

CharacteriStiJ or crop needs of the subject site; these are, accordingly, the factors at issue in this

I

case.

I

I

II.

The

Dlata

on Which the Agency Relied in Making its Decision

In

assJssing the soil characteristics and crop needs of Hamman Fanns' fields, the Agency

I

reviewed Ha¢man Farms' April 2008 letter with attachments (totaling 26 pages), a copy of

which is

a~hed

hereto as Groop Exhibit A. The packet of data and materials that Hamman

Farms

sUbrni~ed

to the Agency, and on which the Agency presumably relied in determining the

appropriate

a~onomic

rate in light of the soil characteristics and crop needs, included:

!

~

a descriptive overview of the operations at the farm, including the number of

acres to which the material would be applied, the chemical composition and

I

average weight of the materials to be applied, the types of crops planted at

I

Hamman Farms, and the average yields of those crops;

~

I

an explanation of the farm's land application procedures, including: its hours and

I

I

months ofoperation, a description ofthe number and types of employees, a listing

I

I

of the equipment used in processing and applying the material to the fields, and a

I

I

detailed description of how material is handled from the time it arrives on-site to

I

the time it is incorporated into the fields. including a description of tilling and

I

spreading practices designed to prevent transportation of the applied materials

I

into surface waters;

~I

a copy of the farm's litter control plan, which details four (4) stages of litter

I

control. and odor control procedures, which consist of seven (7) component parts,

I

which were developed by Hamman Farms with input from Kendall County

State's Attorney Eric Weis, and Kendall County Solid Waste Director, Marlin

Hartman);

3

70569633vl 890519

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 31, 2008

---

I

,

I

I

)0- excerpts from the USDA Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey of Kendall

County, including the general soil

map showing the Hamman Fanns property;

»1

a chemical soil analysis report prepared by Midwest Laboratories that shows the

I

I

chemical analysis of the soil and the landscape material applied at the fann;

~

I

a description of calculations prepared by noted soil scientist, Dr. Agva. Razvi,

which demonstrate

how he detennined the nitrogen demand and expected

I

nitrogen and potassium loading at the fann; and

)- a three-page report

by Dr. Razvi discussing the benefits of agronomic application

of landscape waste, including the conservation of soil and water, and

minimization

of the use of chemical fertilizers, and also describing the

improvements to tilth and soil quality and the minimization

of erosion that have

resulted from

Hamman

Fanns'

application of landscape waste to its fields.

III.

Inforfuation that Hamman Farms Believes is Relevant, Discoverable, and

Admi~sible

in this Case

As dilcussed in Hamman Fanns' brief requesting an order limiting discovery, Hamman

Fanns'

Positi~n

is that not only does the Petitioner lack standing to prosecute the case and the

Board lack JJrisdiction to hear the case, even if the Petitioner had standing and the Board had

I

i

jurisdiction, rscovery would be improper because the only relevant information in a review of a

permit decisiam is the information considered

by the Agency

in

reaching the challenged decision.

I

In

the case otthe Agency's assessment of soil characteristics and crop needs at Hamman Farms,

and the resulling calculation

of the appropriate agronomic rate for the farm, that infonnation is

I

attached here

l

as Exhibit A; this Exlnbit thus obviates any need for discovery.

Ha.nuyan Fanns believes the only other material that would be "arguably relevant,

discoverable,'and admissible

in

this proceeding" would be other data that the Agency reviewed

I

4

70569633v1890519

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 31, 2008

---

and

consider~d

in assessing the fann's soil characteristics and crop needs, and the resulting

I

calculation ot the appropriate agronomic rate. Hamman Fanns is unaware of the existence of

I

such other data, although it is conceivable that the Agency might have such data

in

its

I

I

possession.

Th

the extent that the Agency reviewed and considered other

data

in reaching its

I

decision, that

ldata

might be relevant, discoverable, and admissible.

I

WHEREFORE, HMv1MAN FARMS respectfully requests that the Hearing Officer order

I

that

discov~

is inappropriate

in

this case, or

in

the alternative, enter an order limiting discovery

to the data

r~viewed

and considered by the Agency

in

reaching its assessment of Hamman

I

I

Fanns' soil ¢haracteristics or crop needs, and its resulting calculation of the appropriate

I

I

agronomic ra1e for Hamman Fanns.

I

I

I

Dated:

1-----

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Charles F. H41sten

Nicola

Nelsoljl.

Hinshaw

&

QJ1bertson LLP

100 Park Avenue

P.O. Box

138~

Rockford, IL 61105-1389

815-490-4900

I

I

George Muel'er

Mueller And4rson,

P.C.

609 Etna

Roa~

Ottawa, IL

6~350

8151431-150q

Respectfully submitted,

On behalf of HAMMAN FARMS

lsi

Charles F. Helsten

One of Its Attorneys

This document utilized 1

OO~

recycled paper products.

70569633v1 890519

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 31, 2008

---

j

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

The

dersigned, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1-109 of the Illinois Code of Civil

I

Procedure, hereby under penalty ofpeIj ury under the laws of the United States of America,

certifies that

on July 31,2008, she caused to be served a copy of the foregoing upon:

I

Mr. Jo1m T. 'Ijheniault,Assistant Clerk

via e-mail

Illinois Pollution Control Board

Thomas

G. Gardiner

100

W.

Rand~lph,

Suite 11-500

Michelle M. LaGrotta

Chicago,

IL 6b601

GARDINER KOCH

&

WEISBERG

therriaj@ipcb.st;lteJl.us

53 W. Jackson Blvd., Ste. 950

(via

electron~c

nting)

Chicago,

IL

60604

I

tgardiner@gkw-Iaw.com

mlagrotta@gkw-Iaw.com

viae-mail:

via emaill

Michelle

Ry~

Bradley P. Halloran

Division

ofUgal Counsel

Hearing Officer

Illinois

Envir~nmental

Protection Agency

Illinois Pollution Control Board

1021

N.

Granh

I

Avenue East

James

R.

Thompson Center, Suite 11-500

P.O. Box

192V6

100 w. Randolph Street

Springfield,~

62794-9276

Chicago,IL 60601

Michelle.RyaP@Illinois.gov

ballorab@ipcb.state.il.us

A copy ofthe

Isame

was enclosed in an envelope in the United States mail at Rockford, Illinois,

proper

postag~

prepaid, before the hour of 5:00 p.m., addressed

ave.

I

i/

I

PCB No.

08-~5

Charles F. Hejlsten

Nicola

A

Ne~son

HINSHAW

&

CULBERTSON

I

100 Park Avenue

P.O. Box

1389

Rockford, IL bl105-1389

(815)

490-49QO

I

I

70566472v] 8905]9

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 31, 2008

---

HINSHAW

& CULBERTSON LLP

April 10, 2008

Mr. Derek Rompot, BOL #33

Permit Engineer, Disposal Alternatives Unit

Bureau

of Land, IEPA

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P. O. Box 19276

Springfield, IL 62794-9276

Re:

Hamman Farms (0930155023)

Kendall County

Dear

:t\-1r. Rompot:

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

100 Park Avenue

P.O. Box 1389

Rockford,IL61105-1389

815-490-4900

815-490-4901 (fax)

www.hinshawlaw.com

I have received the March 17, 2008 Memorandum prepared by Steve Nightingale in response to

Hamman Farms' request, pursuant to 415 ILCS 5/21(q), that the Agency exercise its statutory

authority to raise the application rate oflandscape waste to the fields at Hamman Farms. I

appreciate the Agency's careful consideration of this request. Hamman Farms is mindful ofthe

General Assembly'sintent, in enacting the Illinois Environmental Protection Act ("the Act"), to

ensure'thatthe State fulfills its duty to "minimize environmental damage... [and] to promote the

development of technology for environmental protection and conservation ofnatural resources"

and "restore, protect and enhance the quality of the environment." 415 ILCS 5/2(a)(iv); 415

ILCS 5/2(b). Hamman Farms' request is fully in keeping with that purpose, and will,

if granted,

help to further the Act's goals.

As you know, the determination was made back in 1990 that it is inappropriate and inefficient to

dispose oflandscape waste in solid waste landfills.

In

addition to creating a system to establish

and regulate commercial landscape waste disposal sites, the Legislature has also recognized that

it is

cle~rly

in the public interest to encourage recycling and reuse of waste materials, both by

individli'a1s, and by large-scale enterprises. (415 ILCS 5/20(a), (c)). The Act accordingly

provides that those who alleviate pressure on landscape waste disposal facilities by applying

landscape waste to farm fields for agronomic purposes are exempt from the rigorous regulatory

mechanisms and processes that govern commercial sites. The decision to exempt those who

apply landscape waste to farm fields from rigorous mechanisms reflects the Legislature's

understanding that encouraging the re-use oflandscape waste will not only minimize the volume

of waste being deposited in large-scale disposal sites, it will also benefit the soil that receives the

application by preventing erosion, improving tilth, and increasing productivity without the use of

chemical fertilizers (thereby minimizing negative impacts on water quality).

In

addition, the

legislature clearly understood that such application provides a valuable service to landscape

waste generators

by offering a convenient, cost-effective, eco-friendly way to dispose of

70556621 vI 883705

Arizona California Florida Illinois Indiana Massachusetts Minnesota Missouri

New York Oregon Rhode Island Wisconsin

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 31, 2008

---

Mr. Derek Rompot, BOL #33

April 10, 2008

Page 2

~andscape

waste. In summary, the agronomic application of landscape waste consistent with the

soil.characteristics and crop needs

of a particular site constitutes a "full circle" resource recovery

plan w4ich affords multiple environmental benefits.

. . .

.

As you'know, pursuant to 415 ILCS 5/21 (q), landscape waste may be directly applied to fields at

an agronomic rate defined generally as 20 tons per acre per year. However, in setting this rate,

the legislature gave the Agency the discretion to allow an increased application rate

if a farm

owner or operator demonstrates that local soil characteristics or crop needs justify a higher

application rate.

In

the case of Hamman Farms, the soil characteristics and crop needs do,

indeed, justify a higher application rate.

Hamman Farms' land is classified as Highly Erodable Land (HEL). Through application

of

landscape waste, the farm soil has gradually improved in recent years. As noted in the attached

report prepared

by Dr. Aga Razvi, Ph.D. 1, a noted soil expert and professor at the College of

Natural Resources, University of Wisconsin - Stevens Point, careful management and

application oflandscape waste has enabled Hamman Farms to consistently produce high crop

yields for the last fifteen years, while at the same time conserving soil and water, and minimizing

the use

of chemical fertilizers.

Dr. Razvi'sreport observes that in a typical rotation, the crops grown at Hamman Farms would

require, on average, 240 to 260 pounds

of available nitrogen, 75 pounds of phosphorous, and 75

pounds ofpotassium per growing season per acre. Under the statutory agronomic rate, if

measured at its dry weight, 20 tons of landscape waste would supply only 72 pounds of nitrogen

for the soil during the first year. Obviously, this number falls far short

of the 240 to 260 pounds

needed

to sustain acceptable yield levels. The shortfall is even more dramatic if the 20 ton

statutory rate is measured at its "as-received" weight, rather than its dry weight, due to the much

higher water content when in that state.

At the statutory, agronomic rate of 20 tons, Dr. Razvi notes that soil losses on the Hamman HEL

land can only be maintained at a more or less minimal, "tolerable" level. Allowing Hamman

Farms to move beyond maintaining "tolerable soil losses," and to instead apply 80 tons

of

landscape waste per year would allow Hamman Farms to improve the quality and productivity of

this HEL land, while at the same time, minimizing erosion and eliminating the need for chemical

fertilizers. Moreover, allowing a higher rate

of application would significantly decrease the

volume

of waste that would otherwise be deposited in commercial landscape waste disposal

sites. As a result, allowing a greater rate

of application, as provided under Section 21 (q), would

further the Act'spurpose

of conserving natural resources and enhancing the environment.

In

the attachment to Steve Nightingale'sMarch 17, 2008 correspondence, Mr. Nightingale

proposed

that Hamman Farms provide information to support its pending request for an increase

to the application rate.

It

is worth noting that in evaluating the materials provided with this

application, the sole relevant inquiry prescribed

by the Legislature is whether the farm's soil

I

A copy of Dr. Razvi's letter is attached to this application as

Exhibit E.

70556621vl 883705

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 31, 2008

---

Mr. Derek Rompot, BOL #33

April 10, 2008

Page 3

characteristics or crop needs (the designated criteria listed at Section

21 (q)), justify the requested

application rate

of 80 tons per acre per year.

That being noted, for its response to the requests for information listed

in "Attachment A" of the

March 17, 2008 Nightingale Memorandum, Hamman Farms responds as follows:

•

With respect to the amount

of acreage available to receive application of landfill

waste each month, 2,200 acres are available. The method used

to apply the

material to the fields is fully described in the attached

Exhibit

A, which

incorporates an explanation

of Hamman Farms' operations and application

procedures, along with its litter control plan and odor control procedures, which

were developed with input from Kendall County State's Attorney Eric Weis, and

Kendall County Solid Waste Director, Marlin Hartman.

•

In

response to the request for documentation concerning the classification of the

soil, excerpts from the USDA Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey

of Kendall

County are attached

as

Exhibit B.

•

Materials concerning the requested chemical analysis of the soil and compost are

attached to this letter

as

Exhibit C.

•

The requested documentation concerning the nitrogen demand used to determine

the appropriate agronomic rate

of compost application and calculations

concerning the expected nitrogen and potassium loading to the soils,

as provided

by Dr. Razvi, are attached

to this letter as

Exhibit D.

•

No other soil additives are used at the site.

•

As noted above, and

as documented in Dr. Razvi's report, attached as

Exhibit

E,

the application

of landscape waste at Hamman Farms is improving tilth and soil

quality, thereby minimizing erosion.

•

Recordkeeping is described in the "Operational Summary" provided in Group

Exhibit

A.

•

As described in the Operational Summary, in order to prevent the transportation

of applied materials into surface waters, Hamman Farms does not spread or till

within

25 feet of drainage ways.

It

should also be noted that landscape waste is

field applied the same day it is received, and is thoroughly incorporated into the

soil through a 2-step tilling process (described in the Operational Summary),

which surpasses the requirements

of the Act; these procedures effectively prevent

the applied material from traveling into surface waters.

In light

of the information and documentation provided herein, and given the benefits of

dramatically improved soil quality, improved water quality (through elimination of the use of

chemical fertilizers), minimization of surface water runoff, increased productivity, and decreased

70556621vl883705

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 31, 2008

---

Mr. Derek Rompot, BOL #33

April 10, 2008

Page 4

pressure on commercial landscape waste disposal sites, Hamman Farms' request that it

be

allowed to apply landscape waste at a rate of 80 tons per year should be granted because it would

further the purpose of the Act by helping to restore, protect and enhance the quality of the

environment. The request is, therefore, appropriate under 415 ILCS 5/21(q).

Because Hamman Farms' operational season is upon us, and disposal pressures in the

marketplace are intensifying and must

be addressed, I look forward to receiving approval ofthe

requested application rate at the earliest possible opportunity.

If you have any questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please do not hesitate to

call me.

Sincerely,

HINSHAW

&

CULBERTSON LLP

..

--

~~

I)

/('0

J

/"'-'"

1

"'.

~.

".

,j.

".:'~.::::~"'.

"~

,\\

\\

..

."

/I

.

.

.i

/

g,

( !

\; 1

L=~~).I

,v'

~-~'

\~,_/",

,,/

\

'\,,~'l

\)}

ul

...1

r../

II (

Charles F. Helsten

815-490-4906

che1sten@hinshaw1aw.com

CFH:nn

Enclosures

cc:

Don Hamman

Eric Weis

Marlin Hartman

70556621vl883705

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 31, 2008

---

EXHIBIT A - LAND APPLICATION PLAN

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 31, 2008

---

APPLICATION PLAN - OVERVIEW

The rate and methodology of the application of landscape waste to the fields at Hamman Fanns

can best be understood by beginning with a simple mathematical overview

of the amount of

waste that is proposed to be applied, and the amount of acreage that would receive the waste.

Hamman Fanns proposes to accept

up to 9,387 loads of landscape waste annually, with an

average of 75 cubic yards per load. This would result in 704,025 cubic yards of waste material.

While the weight

of a cubic yard of landscape waste varies depending on its content (i.e. fallen

leaves are much lighter than fresh-mown grass clippings), on average the weight

of such waste is

500 pounds per cubic yard. When the number

of cubic yards (704,025) is multiplied by the

average weight per cubic yard (500 pounds), the result is a total

of 176,006 tons of landscape

waste per year.

Hamman Fanns has 2,200 acres that would be available to receive application

of the proposed

176,006 tons

of landscape waste. This would represent an annual application rate of 80 tons per

acre. The rate of application is uniform throughout the acres in use because, as a practical matter,

it is virtually impossible to super-apply the material to a particular spot, given that the applied

material

is plowed in every day, causing the soil to become loose and soft. Once material has

been plowed in to a given area, the molboarding equipment would become bogged down and

unable

to operate if an attempt was made to re-apply to that same area within a given year.

The Hamman Fanns protocol

of spreading and plowing the material into the fields the same day

it

is received not only avoids odor problems, it also decreases erosion of the farm's HEL soil,

and prevents sheeting off of rainwater from the fields. The efficient manner in which Hamman

Fanns processes the landscape waste it receives provides additional environmental benefits,

including increased nutrient supply and retention that eliminates the need for application

of

artificial fertilizers to the fann's fields, and improved moisture retention. These improvements to

soil quality, coupled with the resulting increased aeration, have led to outstanding productivity

over the last fifteen years, with yields

of 250 bushels per acre of corn, 50 to 70 bushels per acre

of soybeans, and 90 to 110 bushels of winter wheat per acre. At the same time, Hamman Farms

has been able

to keep a substantial amount of landscape waste out of Illinois landscape waste

disposal sites, and offers a value service to !fiunicipalities and waste haulers in their attempts to

manage the waste needs

of urban and suburban landowners.

The documents in the Land Application Plan which follows (collectively, Group Exhibit A)

provide a description

of the fann itself, its employees, its equipment, its protocols for handling

waste from the moment it arrives at the site

to the time it is plowed into the fields, its litter

control plan, and its odor control procedures.

70558424vl 883705

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 31, 2008

---

FACILITY OPERATIONS and APPLICATION RATE

HAMMAN

FARMS LLC

1994

2,200 acres

2.0 acres

April 1st - January lOth

January

11 - March 31st

6:00AM - 5:00PM

6:00AM - 12:00PM

Daily Processing

Employees:

Equipment:

Commencement of Operations

Subject Site owned and/or controlled and farmed by Don

&

Carol Hamman

Staging Area for IncomingIReceivinglProcessingILoading

Approximate Open Season

Closed

Receiving Hours - Monday through Friday

Receiving Hours - Saturday

All landscape material received is processed and field applied that day

1x General Manager

Ix Site Supervisor

3x Equipment Operators

3x Full Time Pickers

Ix Komatsu 470 Wheel Loader (Pushes material to Tub Grinder and loads Spreaders)

Ix Vermeer Model 700 Tub Grinder (1,000 hp with 400-500 cubic yardlhr capacity)

Ix Cat 330 Excavator with 8 yard Grapple (loads material into Tub Grinder)

2x Morlang 20 yard Spreader

Ix 9520 (475 hp) John Deere 4x4 Tractor with Case IH 9 shank ecology Chisel Plow

Ix Case IH (530 hp) Quad Tractor with 10 bottom John Deere Molboard Plow

Ix Roll-Off box for reject material and picked plastic.

Ix New 20 yard Spreader (delivery in July)

Operational Summary:

Landscape material arrives in trailers or trucks during operating hours and is directed to unload at the designated unloading/processing

area. Employees pick non-conforming material during the unloading. A rubber tire wheel loader moves material from the unloading area

to the processing and/or grinding stockpile. The excavator moves landscape waste from the stockpile into the tub grinder. The tub grinder

processes material until it passes through a 5"x5" diamond shaped screen. Processed material is then loaded into spreading trucks that

transport and spread material in the designated field. Material is first chisel plowed into the field, then molboard plowed (a 2 step process

that fully incorporates the material

into

the field).The facility supervisor collects load tickets from each driver and notes the area where the

material has been applied. A field does not receive more than I application per year. Material is not spread within 25 feet

of drainage ways

to prevent transportation ofapplied materials into surface waters. Material is processed and field applied the

day

it is received.

Continued investment in proper equipment allows the site

to remain open and fully operational during inclement weather.

Pickers/laborers control waste

by patroling the unloading/processing area as well as the fields, ditches, and roads at and near the Subject

Site.

Soil Management and Crop Yield:

Soil Survey literature shows the Subject Site is generally associated with Saybrook-Drummer-La Rose series ofsoils, so protecting the

soil from erosion and increasing its organic matter content are major soil management concerns. Application

of processed landscape waste

provides several benefits, including increased aeration, nutrient supply and retention; improved moisture retention; and decreased soil

erosion. As a result, Hamman Farms has consistently produced crop yields

of250 bushels of corn per acre, 50 to 70 bushels ofsoybeans

per acre, and

90 to 11 0 bushels of winter wheat per acre.

Proposed Application Rate

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Scenario 3

Lighter

Average

Heavier

Loads of Landscape Material

(A)

9,387

9,387

9,387

(Ids/yr)

Average Cubic Yards per Load

(B)

75

75

75

(cy/load)

Annual Cubic Yards

(C)

(A*B)

704,025

704,025

704,025

(cy/year)

Acres Applied (estimated)

(D)

2,200

2,200

2,200

(acres)

Cubic Yards/Acre

(E)

(CID)

320

320

320

(cy/acre)

Loads/acre

(F)

(AID)

4.3

4.3

4.3

(loads/acre)

Average Lbs/Cubic Yard

(G)

400

500

600

(Ibs/cy)

Tons

(II)

(C*G)/2000

140,805

176,006

211,208

(tons)

Tons/Acre

(I)

(HID)

64

96

(tons/acre)

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 31, 2008

---

Litter Control Procedures

Hamman Farms

Hamman FamlS has

prepar~

this Litter Control Plan to develop a standard operating

procedure for the acceptance

of yard waste materials from miscellaneous landscapers and

other transporters to assUre compliance with IEPA guidelines.

Hamman Farms recognizes

the need to establish and enforce a set

of guidelines not only for compliance as well

establish themselves as a good neighbor. Hamman

F<:lfI1Js is committed to enforcing and

maintaining

the procedures as outlined below.

The Litter Control P'lan consists of the following components:

1) All parties delivering material to Hamman

Fanns shall be notified prior to

delivery and dumping that litter/general refuse are not acceptable for disposal at

this facility. In addition to notifying

aU parties delivering material to the facility,

Hamman Farms shall also notify all employees

of the Litter Control Plan.

2) Stage

1.

AU loads will be screened by Hamman staff as they are unloaded

by the hauler to monitor and catch any unacceptable materials as they exit

the

vehicle. Any incidental material that is culled from the load as it is being

unloaded will be given back to the hauler that delivered the

load for return and

disposal at a proper disposal facility.

3)

Stage 2.

Prior to loading landscape waste into the grinder for processing, a

end-loader shall move material to assist spotters looking to

pick any litter/general

refuse prior to the material being placed in the grinder. Due to the safety concerns

here one

man will be utilized at this location. Any litter/general refuse collected

here will

be separated and disposed in a waste receptacle to be delivered to a

properly permitted waste disposal facility at least once a week.

4) Stage 3.

All processed!ground landscape waste will be additionally

. screened for any litter/general refuse prior to being loaded into the spreaders and

• taken to the fields for application. 1-2 people will be utilized for these screening

, activities. Any litter/general refuse collected here will

be separated and disposed

.' in a waste receptacle to be delivered to a properly permitted waste disposal

i

facility at least once per week.

I

I

---------r

I

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 31, 2008

---

5)

Stage 4.

Upon application of the material to the fields and prior to being

molbard tilled into the ground, additional personnel (2-4 people)

sh~

walk the

fields of the applied materials and

~ollect

any unacceptable materials that may

have gotten through the prior screening processes. (Unacceptable materials are

defined as all non-biodegradable materials that measure larger

than a softball or

4" by 4" in diameter) Hamman Fanus will be responsible in maintaining a 40'

radius clean of not more than 5 pieces of unacceptable material at all times.

6) Finally, Hamman

Fanns shall calculate, on a weekly basis, the percentage ofnon-

landscape waste and maintain these records for three (3) years.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 31, 2008

---

Hamman Farms

Hamman Fanns has developed multiple features into the operational plan to control and

minimize any potential odors off the facility property. Hamman Fanns is committed to

maintaining the pro.cedures as outlined below.

The Odor Control Plan consists of the following components:

1)

All vehicleS entering the facility tipping area will be directed to the tip area

being utilized at that time. All material will be:unload.ed in the designated

area.

2)

Any incoming load which exhibits an unusually distinct odor will not be

stockpiled with other materials

in

the tipping area,.but it will be immediately

screened

for

any litter/general refuse and processed by the grinder and then

screened again and loaded onto a spreader and immediately taken to the field

for application.

3)

Upon identifying repeat loads with distinct odors, Hamman Farms will notify

the

hauler delivering the material ofthe concern and work to mitigate

deliveries

in

the future.

4)

Other than specifically identified loads with a distinct odor, all other loads

will

be continually processed throughout the operating day on a first-in, firs-

out

to the field basis. As such, all materials delivered to the facility will be

processed and readied for application to the field daily.

5)

In addition

to daily processing of all materials, all processed materials will be

land applied each day. This is above and beyond the CUITent IEPA

requirements. (Currently allowed to stockpile for five

days)

6)

In addition to the benefit of daily application is the daily incorporation into the

soil. This as well is

not required by regulation, but is a management practice

incorporated

by-HammanFarmsto.a4mti9na,1~y..IJ!.i~ig~te

any

potential odors at

the facility. Currently these incorporation techniques are tWofold: chisel

plowing the field and molbard plowing the field to incorporate the material.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 31, 2008

---

7)

In addition to the above mentioned practices, Hamman Farms will

immediately investigate any complaints ofodors leaving the property and

work diligently to mitigate the concern.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 31, 2008

---

EXHffiITB

USDA SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE SOIL SURVEY

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 31, 2008

---

SOIL SURVEY OF

Kendall

County,

Illinois

United States Department of Agriculture

Soil Conservation Service

In cooperation with

Illinois Agricultural Experiment Station

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 31, 2008

---

-

~

- -

~

::--

..

-~~

-

.

-...

:--~-

... ;

U. s. DePARTMENT OF AGf/,'pULTURE

SOil CONSERVATION SERVICE

I.L..L:INPJS

A~RICULTURALtXP.ER,.tM~NT

$TATI~N

.GENERALSQJ;L .MAP

KllINDA:I,J.·GPtT~y)

ILLINOIS

..

;:

1

~

-

.1

.j

SCilll; 1 :.1.26,720

T

"'2

f

.!

-.0

I

til

1

~H::~ '%S~,?s~\WJati~n4

..

W~lL~~ittJ1IJ~1,q:P"Il~tJ,y,~r~·~.nElc:l,

'510~lrig\S'ol1s".thatfbnnetl"n~Ht

Ipain matenal

o:ij;j'

tblciani~i!<l&illNHl"

..... ....

,

le:i.(FBJ:¢,tit_pii~sS·O:dra~fpR:

r;!,Y

l.evel,pili1rl

lJ

iQra

1

/'leo

~g"!Y·d~~I.n!!d,soJ!;S'

~~'iir~

.

!n~s;fn:,Ii:iam

rtfaterJal

IIlf,glac13I

ot!twa~~'

-, "tD.n

'ElssQii~tJpJ:l:

NIJ~r.IY

Ie-Y¢l,,:S,i1m

e

Vihat:ll,lilp

t

IY

ttlt\~~d:SQ11S't~iil

foml'fidlosl

"0/

,cll!Y~~Da's:IIW;¢la->,

}!!.~li.S

.

-

ClJfnpU:eu

),97q

1

1 ,

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 31, 2008

---

T, 36 N.

T. 35 N.

I

I

5.

'3'J

I ....

r-~-

I

88'30'

I

R.7E.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 31, 2008

---

. I

320

~.

'.

f

'.

J.OSNO; 0S3s

DA~'1D.19:b5

:REV:' - .

: ,DRAWNllY; TRe

'WoTItiIl1l~et.l6r

Trust

---

,;

'Hrm-afli

.

I

~'

OhriSrkm

,..~

ati.6t!

---,-----4

~B

.

~tJg.6:'t.

.

H~.~6.

.f!;JelV8.r.1(

E SU6JEc;::r$JTE

;;;.........

7

,..UlC"'----:W:::o.c',;;;t:;;;;;~(,.,;;.;;·,....,.....:...=-

........J,i

Pt.o.T:'~JsOlt~~~t

.KEJq"""f./~'

ROC~FORD,MAP-PU'LI3iEM;~

.

.ROCKFOIl0.

lLt~O&S

.

\,,"a>ITIOii·~

.:If

..

Jlr¥.t

••

OfM19

&

.fan

f

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 31, 2008

---

EXHIBITC

CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF SOIL/COMPOST

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 31, 2008

---

Mar 17 08 04:U8p

Charles~.

FEB-12l1-2008 14:49 F"rom;FOX RIDGE STCNE

il:l~

A"

CST

1ZI1Z/; 7

Murpn~

6305549181

b,,:jU

::>l.::l-~tlbtl

To:847

931 2871

P.3

PGt)"

1

II

llewrt Number

07.J41-.51A2

13811

~~.~~W~~~~"!':::':':?;;~~:::~;~-;~:l:·t.--·",,_~~:·!:~:·~::i·'::/'"

'm'

~~,

'S'

Sll'&Ol.

Omaha.

MI"sl

l.8'U,atorleS,

NllbTllllkA (181444693'

(~) ~7770'

FAX

lac':

(<4~)

334,9121

DONRAMMAN

HINTZSCHE

Fl;flllLIZER

26181 COUNTY

UHE

ROAD

MAPLE PARK IL

60151~

1.

MIOO11lI IIl!tlYala

porf/mJlad

!l)IlCAP

Ullins

a

wv~

dl~

prnallt"l'O.

2.

Mi4~

ubl1l$ll

Wllf

9!leali.ur

moIbOd&

for

pll

fu~

and food

",,~y_.

Pl,lrllfC'

~

SillliO ICSliq

1tID~9iYfolUlWli ~ Nl¢~

Po,.. TllIItlllll

AaIllQI~oll

(NFTA)

n)QO~

lIICihQda.

J.

Mldwra~ ~

11

oanitIlld Iv rho

NIllioIUl!

Por.

TII_

~Ion

(NFT

A)

(or

WOI

chomiatry

method. DIld

itln.lII 11I11I,•••

... CJ

N

tIitkl3,s,9

5. A,nalysll 'or;

(1398$) HINTZSCHB FRRTILIZER

Pbo=; (6)0) '''.2406

0.18

0.19

0.66

0.60

0.08

3.07

0:90

32.3

2062

dill/

""/I

77

., '.'f..

O.P9

0,09

0.0:4

1.'3

0.33

0.4'

121

....

O~

,"..

07

1.21

a.,_

121

t

t ••

07

S~l.

In;

l.Ii:AVJlS

.,...

d~tu.rr: Ml~

JQlACB

35.~

I

John

-¥~--

P. Torpy

T

Cllllulloal

pin>otor

DodiCQtsd

ExcJuslYtlIy

so Providing oVa«/}' AntJlytfcsl SsrViC8s

OIIr repoI1IJlIncllDllelll ore Illc'rht

exalulll~andoonlo.nualll8llol

ourOBllrIlIllWldllll)' nOl

be

raproduaedln

wholIlor~pqn.llOImly

W'i'f

reIar!lnoe

/lIl

tlIa4elllll1~woril,

\Ile

IMlIIB.

or N ccmpllnY in

/lily

adllOl1lGlng,

Il~B

releua.

01

aSIa! pllXlo

lIIl/lOlI1I~n18

wllhoul oblDlnln; our

pllor

"'''Il8lIIIUIho~ZlIdQl.

"'. ,-

"

,o<k:(C,

"'".

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 31, 2008

---

Mar 17 08 04:0Sp

Charles J.

Murph~

630 513-S868

FEB-01-2008 14:49 From:FOX RIDGE STONE

63~~49181

To:847 931 2871

•

•I

-

MIDWEST LABORATORIES, INC. SOIL REPORT FOR HINTZSCHE FERTILIZER

P.4

Page 1 of 1

p.tl

RI:PDRT NUMD!!Jl

OT..1Je-Dm

oec

7.2007

Mldwttat

toOIl

~.nlO~1M(ml

':lin

~~

....

.......

"'oratprl

'0"'

»o-!!l~l·-

....

1

,..,......

,.

,...aN

..

_

coPYro

1/1

D~C

10.

200T

~~ZSCHeFeRnuzeR

(mID'ACCOUNT

2.0181

m

I.INe RP

".APLfP...

~Il.

801111.

_COPY1'O

SOIL ANo\L.

Y~I$ ~epORT

.V.feYdo.

iQ

: '

"

.'

-.'

,j:,ORM

~

".:

hQ.1'~"~:fIl\UY.lIl~~

--,

lAU

~"'f'~U

~

PtiO(jf't19RllfJ

POT"'I!fill;lM

M4OJ>1~~IUIot ~ui.!

1I00l\J!l/'

pH

CA110N

I'liMCEfIT'IlAOI!

HU/II(It:!l

Jl)IINT1~Jc:"no~

MATl'l!,!l

......,..,

/

....

EJ(cH""~li

C'oPIICIlY

ICOtoIP.UTmMTURATION

I~

..

~

~ICA"ISONATe

CJ

/dO

C.

No

i8

IfIUIIFeM

"

"

~

~

,P

II

""

"'

e,

If

1'/1

~",YIIft".IIQ(

t.' "

'-

'*",,'y

.....

IHP~

C.Be.

-!'I

~ROIilo/"R-'TE

'/IjllllAATll _AATE

IINlI

AATf.

Illllll ,""Til

.....

RIoT!!

_

FlAT!!

I.... RAn

"

...o/fOlla

Il1n700

,

, IlJi

VII AO

Vii

111

Vii

~Dt!,

VH

&49

VH

~~o,

/01'

7J

11.(1

U

PDI

8O,A

"n7lM

2

au

VH

III

VH

lPl

VH

7llO

VH

17.

VM

118

hi

7,~

11.1

11.4

~10

PIO

b17T1811

~

u

ytl

'0

VIi

OJ

VH

aV~

VI!

m

Vtl

1~1

..

1J

170

101 a60

~,

817111lG

•

/La

',Vii O!I

V~

D'

VH

DO!

VI"

4li:l

Vtl

.tBOt

M

lU

0.0

18a

aT

20a

11111

A3

<'.;

.,"~~

~.

N~TE,H

.,,)

SU!-l',VIl'

~(;

~lIC'

~I/

COI'Pt!R

b~C!N

"Q'

~.,;~b'1

,

..

a'

TI,!,,!

~l"

~

Ftt

c~

II

~M~~_~~~~~~~_~~~_~~~~~

, --,

,_.--~

:..!N,,,, ..'

, IN

'""

'

,

27

4"

N

...,' 11

1,\

~

III

~

~

~

K

JTaTlHI

n:btt

~

~

N

~

~

M

Your coat for 'hI. repo!1;

~.oa

o,-,r

~~

\

$.5"

Q.x

~"J4

7S~o

'SO

~(;J

2~

-

:J~

PI

II"l

IS"

- "J,

Z

C;;

PP/Vl

pu

~ GJ\~r'

of.

D~

IIJf"

BtA

C1C

~~N

------

.

J

2

https://www.midwestlabs.com/mosslrepOTt.php

]211012007

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 31, 2008

---

EXHIBITD

CALCULATIONS RE: NITROGEN DEMAND AND EXPECTED NITROGEN AND

POTASSIUM LOADING

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 31, 2008

---

TargetN

Target yield 250 bushels per acre x 1.3 lbs. N per bushel

=

325 pounds of N per acre

Soybeans using soil nitrogen as a source are able to remove as much nitrogen as corn

Contributions from soil organic matter

Soil organic matter content 5.5%

Assume 3% Nand 3% decomposition per year

N

from soil organic matter:= 0.055 * 0.03 * 0.03*2,000,000 lb soil/acre =

99lb N per

acre

Nitrate nitrogen from soil

Soil tests done determined this amount to be

Nitrogen from

yar<l waste applied

Target N minus

(N

from organic matter plus N from nitrate):= N from yard waste applied

or fertilizer sources

325 - ( 99

+

53) = 173 pounds of available N must be applied via yard waste

Yard Waste target N of

1

73 pounds per acre

Assume average Total Nitrogen content of yard waste material to be 0.45% as received

basis. Total Nitrogen content

on an as-received basis is 9 pounds per ton.

Assume 20% of Total Nitrogen is available to crop in fIrst year after application. Higher

rates of

de_QolIlJ2o.§it.jQI!JJl~Y..Qcgur

dependent upon C:N r?-tio,

partic~e s~e ~f

waste, soil

moisture, soil temperature, soil pH, soil oxygen, length

oftime etc. Some of the available

nitrogen may be lost to the atmosphere due to denitrifIcation. Therefore, under

conditions of this assumption each ton of as-received yard waste contributes 1.8 pounds

of available nitrogen.

Application

Rate

As-received

tons/acre

20

40

60

80

100

Available Nitrogen

in first year after application

pounds/acre

36

72

108

144

180

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 31, 2008

---

Potassium Calculations

Corn needs for potassium are 0.28 pounds per bushel or (0.28*250 bushels/acre);= 70

pounds per acre. Soybean needs for potassium could

be twice as much as .com.

Potassium from yard waste

Assume 0.66% potassium content

of yard waste material on a dry basis

Assume 50% moisture content (Higher for grass clippings, lower for brush)

Potassium content on an as-received basis 0.33%

Each as-received ton

of waste contains 6.6 pounds ofpotassium. Because of the

variability in yard waste, it would

be difficult to accurately predict the percent availability

of potassium in the first year. Assume 20% breakdown of organic matter and 30-50% of

potassium is available in the first year. This value could vary dependent upon C:N ratio,

soil moisture, soil temperature, soil pH etc, Therefore,

we can assume that 2-3 pounds of

potassium per as-received ton may be available in the first year after application.

With the available potassium (very high) in the soil, an application

rate of 80-1 00 tons of

yard waste material potassium is likely to accumulate in the soil at levels in excess of

crop needs and as evidenced by the soil test report.

It

would be difficult to balance

agronomic needs

of all crops. Best management practices for fertilizer applications in

Illinois allow application

of excess amounts ofpotassium to meet the needs of two

successive crops in a rotation. Excess amounts

ofpotassium should be harnessed by

including soybeans, and forage crops in a rotation, combined with routine soil tests, and

if needed a break in yard waste application for a year or more in fields that have very

high levels of potassium.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 31, 2008

---

EXHIBITE

OPINION OF DR. RAZVI,

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 31, 2008

---

College

.....

of

NafuralResources

uriiv'ersityofWi~consin-SieY~

Point

February 13, 2008

Mr.

Don Hamman

6275 Rte.

71

Oswego, Illinois 60543

Dear

Mr.

Hamman,

Stevens Point, Wisconsin 54481-3897

(715) 346-2853

FAX (715) 346-3624

I have reviewed the violation notice L-2007-041437 dated November 15, 2007, issued to

Hamman Farms by the Bureau of Land of the illinois EPA. This notice is regarding

application oflandscape wastes on agricultural land. The referenced violation notice

refers to the over application oflandscape wastes. I have reviewed the narratives

prepared

by

Mr.

Gino Bruni based on field inspections conducted on September 21, and

October 17,2007. I have also reviewed a letter written to you on February 4,2008 by

Mr.

McTaggart, District Conservationist of the Yorkville, of the Natural Resources

Conservation Service (NRCS). The following is my opinion on the issue of over

application

of landscape wastes.

The landscape waste application on the Hamman Farms has two primary objectives:

1. To offer a valuable service to landscape waste generators while saving landfill space

due to the existence of a landfill ban for this material.

2. Conserve soil while building tilth for better crop yields, minimization of erosion, and

environmental protection.

The landscape waste application has allowed this farm to progressively build the soil

organic matter and tilth to conserve the soil from eroding, while minimizing or

eliminating the use

of commercial fertilizers and minimizing the potential negative

impact on groundwater and surface water. The organic

matter in a soil offers a continuous single source

of all essential crop nutrients available

over a long period of time. More organic matter in a soil is better than less organic

matter, both for crop growth, and environmental protection. Addition

of organic matter

minimizes soil erosion especially on Highly Erodable Land (HEL) such as you have on

your land. I agree with the assessment made by Mr. McTaggart ofNRCS that the

application

of 20 tons per acre would be sufficient to keep the soil losses at a tolerable

level complimenting HEL requirements. In

my opinion, any application above the 20 tons

per acre is only a compliment to this land and HEL requirements.

Organic matter is continually decomposing material, as a result it is difficult to sustain a

high level of organic matter unless there are repeated additions and or greater levels of

landscape wastes applied. Recent soil analysis results from soil samples collected from

the Hamman Farms suggest that the organic matter

in

soils receiving landscape waste has

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 31, 2008

---

been built up to 5% by weight of the soils plow layer. Similar soils

in

this region may

have half the amount of organic matter. The amount of landscape waste applied has a

direct impact on the soil organic matter as well as the amount ofplant nutrients it could

potentially supply to the crop. Many farmers land-apply adequate organic wastes

(agronomic rates) to meet all ifnot most of their crop's agronomic nutrient needs.

Agronomic rates are generally defined as application rates ofnutrients to meet specific

crop needs with a certain target yield. These nutrients may be supplied through fertilizer,

soil amendments, or waste addition. For landscape wastes 415 ILCS 5/21(q) states

"agronomic rates means the application

ofnot more than 20 tons per year, except that the

Agency may allow a higher rate for individual sites where the owner or operator has

demonstrated to the Agency that the sites soil characteristics or crop needs require a

higher rate". In this section

of the code it is unclear if the 20 T/acre are dry or wet (as-

received) weight. Further,

it

is clearly demonstrated in other sections ofthe illinois

Environmental Protection Act as to what the maximum plant nutrient limits (agronomic

rates) are for each crop. These agronomic rates are listed in Title 35, Subtitle E, Chapter

II Part 560- "Design Criteria for Field Application of Livestock Waste". A parallel set of

allowable agronomic nutrient rates are listed in the illinois Agronomy Handbook - 1997,

an authority on agronomic practices. Both the Agronomy Handbook and

35 lAC 560

have more or less similar recommendations for com and soybeans and in each case the

rate is based on bushels

of yield for each of these crops.

The Hamman Farms has consistently produced crops with yields

of over 250 bushels of

com per acre and 40 bushels of soybeans per acre. In a typical rotation these crops would

need on average 240 to 260 pounds of available N,75 pounds ofphosphorus, and 75

pounds of potassium per growing season per acre. Based on chemical analysis conducted

by Midwest Laboratories on yard waste material collected on December 5

ili

,

2007, a 20

dry T per acre application rate would supply an estimated 72 pounds

of nitrogen during

the first year, far short of the agronomic nitrogen needs ofthe com crop (240 to 260 lb

N/acre). The nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium supplied by a 20 dry T per acre yard

waste application rate falls far short of meeting crop nutrient needs. Even lesser amounts

of nitrogen would become available if only 20 T (as-received) were applied per acre.

An

application of twenty dry tons per acre is equivalent to a two inch deep layer of

ground up waste spread on the land surface. Since a two inch deep layer does not quite

meet the agronomic needs of the crops serious consideration should be given to

application rates that closely match the nutrient needs

of crops (i.e., larger than 20 dry

T/acre or more than 2 inch deep layer). Such application rates will eliminate the need for

the addition of commercial fertilizers to meet crop needs while offering erosion

protection benefits from organic matter build up.

I believe that given the IEPA's ability to afford individual sites discretion with the

application rates, the IEPA should accept and permit the higher application rate

of 80-

100 tons (as-received) per acre as considered in my analysis. The crop rotation and

subsequent nutrient demand continue to benefit the higher than normal crop yields along

with the otherwise HEL (Highly Erodable Land) concerns. Combining the science with

the benefits provided to the landscape waste community, the IEPA should have enough

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 31, 2008

---

information and to use their discretion to allow a higher application rate as outlined in the

Act.

The Hamman Farms' land spreading operation offers a very important alternative to yard

waste disposal to the various communities. At the same time this operation conserves

soil/water, and minimizes the use

of fertilizer. Hamman Farms believes its application

rates are well within the agronomic rates published

by

IEP

A and other recognized

institutions.

We are willing to meet with members of the Land Bureau and offer our

point

of view on this matter so we can demonstrate that our application rates are well

within the "agronomic rates".

Sincerely,

Aga

as

S.

tl

Razvi

{

.1i.-.

Ph.D.

Professor

of Soil Science

University

of Wisconsin-Stevens Point

(715) 346-3618

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 31, 2008