ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This
matter comes before the Administrative Law Court (Court or ALC) pursuant to the
request of the Petitioners (Coneross Citizens) for a contested case hearing. After
the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC or
Department) issued State Agricultural Permit No. 18,991-AG to Brian Tippett
(Tippett) for construction and operation of a poultry farm with four (4)
broiler houses, the Coneross Citizens challenged the issuance of the Permit. After
proper notice, a hearing was held on June 27 and 28, 2006, at the Administrative Law Court.
FINDINGS
OF FACT
Having
observed the witnesses and exhibits presented at the hearing and taking into
consideration the burden of persuasion and the credibility of the witnesses, I
make the following findings of fact by a preponderance of evidence:
General
Findings
1. On April 6, 2005,
Respondent C. Brian Tippett, the owner/operator of the proposed poultry farm,
filed an application and an Animal Facility Management Plan for the
construction of four (4) poultry broiler houses to accommodate 30,000 broilers
per house, with six flocks per year.
Mr. Tippett graduated from Clemson University with a Bachelors of Science in
Poultry Business. He is quite experienced in the process of receiving, growing
out and selling the poultry, as well as the various systems his poultry barns
would utilize to minimize odor, air and water pollution.
The proposed facility
is located in Oconee County on Irene Drive, four (4) miles north of the
Community of Westminster, South Carolina. Before filing the application, Mr.
Tippett notified all property owners, including the Coneross Baptist Church, within 1,320 feet of the proposed poultry farm with a Notice of Intent to
Construct Form by certified mail or hand delivery. DHEC subsequently held a
public hearing in response to the comments from the Coneross community opposing
the proposed poultry farm. In addition to other issues, the citizens raised
many health-related concerns. DHEC requested that citizens with those concerns
submit medical records to DHEC’s epidemiologist, James J. Gibson, M. D. for
further review. After consideration of all issues including the health
concerns raised by the citizens concerning the proposed agricultural permit,
DHEC issued State Agricultural Permit No. 18,991-AG for the construction of
four (4) poultry broiler houses to Respondent Brian Tippett.
The proposed poultry
farm will be located in a rural, agricultural area of Oconee County. It will produce 720,000 birds per year with an average live weight at any one time of
351,000 pounds. The waste produced in one year will be approximately 732 tons. The
poultry farm will be operated as a dry manure system and thus the broilers will
be housed and raised on earthen floors covered with wood shavings. Importantly,
the permit is a no-discharge (agricultural manure and animal by-products
treatment and storage system) permit which requires that the facility be
operated to prevent discharges to the environment. The permit also does not
allow land application of manure on the 84-acre tract where the poultry farm
will be constructed.
Rather, Mr. Tippett is required to contract for handling of the manure by a
permitted manure broker. Waste from the facility is to be disposed of in
accordance with the Animal Facility Management Plan developed by Joy Shealy and
the Manure Broker Contract with Melvin Stephens, a licensed manure broker, for
the Purchase of Waste. Furthermore, the following special conditions are
required by DHEC in the permit:
The proposed farm must be operated in accordance with State
and federal law to prevent discharges to the environment; dead birds must be
disposed of in an approved burial pit; and the applicant is prohibited from
using Irene Drive, which runs adjacent to Coneross Baptist Church.
The Coneross Citizens
contested the issuance of this permit on the grounds that air and water
pollution will be increased by the poultry barns and that emissions generated
from the poultry facility will unreasonably interfere with their use and
enjoyment of the properties and that air contaminants from the poultry barns will
exacerbate existing health problems experienced by various members of the group
and reduce their property values. The Coneross Citizens also contend that the
issuance of the permit will affect the use and enjoyment of the Coneross Baptist Church, to which several of the Petitioners belong. In addition to the
church building, the surrounding facilities consist of a gazebo, a basketball
court, a public picnic area, and the church cemetery, all located approximately
1,000 to 1,450 feet from the proposed poultry facility.
In determining whether
or not to grant a permit, DHEC, and thus the ALC, is required to evaluate the
impacts of the permit to water resources and air quality, including downwind
receptors.
Water
Quality
2. As part of
the water resources review required under S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 61-43, Part 200.70(E),
permitted point source discharges, water quality monitoring stations, drinking
water intakes, state approved source water protection areas, groundwater public
supply wells, impaired water bodies, heritage corridors, state and national
parks and forests, and other non-point sources located in the watershed are
considered in determining whether to issue this permit. The proposed barns are
to be located on the highest spot of the land, 40 to 50 feet above Coneross
Creek which is to the immediate west. The waters of Coneross Creek are only
about 800 feet downslope from the proposed barns. Furthermore, there is an
impaired water body adjacent to the proposed poultry farm, which is impaired due
to copper and fecal coliform bacteria.
These facts would
create grave concerns if the facility allowed the discharge of animal waste.
However, the evidence did not establish that the production houses will adversely
impact any of the State’s waters. The proposed poultry houses will be fully
enclosed to prevent rainwater from entering the houses and coming in contact
with the poultry litter inside of the houses. Manure removed from the proposed
poultry houses is to be managed by a permitted manure broker as required in the
permit and Facility Management Plan. Because the proposed facility is a
no-discharge facility, neither copper nor fecal coliform bacteria will enter
the stream and thus should not impact the impaired water body of Coneross Creek.
Furthermore, the setbacks in the regulations for ditches and swales serve to
provide a buffer to prevent particles from entering adjacent water bodies,
should there be any runoff. Moreover, the Coneross community receives its
drinking water from a public water system. The intake for that system is
located up-stream from the proposed poultry farm.
Nevertheless, when the
manure is removed from the barns, the Animal Facility Management Plan allows
stockpiling on site in excess of 3 days if placed on a pad or other acceptable
surface and covered with a vented tarp. The cover and pad are intended to
prevent the manure from washing downhill into surface water. However, though
this site has undulating areas, the permit places no restriction on the
location of a manure stockpile. If a heavy rainfall occurred before the manure
was covered it could wash down into the creek. On the other hand, Mr. Tippett testified
that it is his intent to have the manure hauled off the same day it is cleaned
out of the house. There is, however, no requirement to that effect in the
permit.
Air
Quality and Odor
3. Live animal
operations often produce odors and particulates. In particular, both ammonia
and hydrogen sulfide may be produced in poultry barns. Additionally, odorous
compounds may be produced as a result of anaerobic decomposition. However, poultry
farms are the least, or at least one of the least, environmentally offensive of
the live animal operations. Moreover, a dry litter facility is the easiest to
manage and the best, most environmentally friendly manure management system
available today in animal production. Additionally, an important aspect in
controlling the emissions of those odors and particulates is the design and
management of the facility.
The basic design of the
proposed facility is typical in this industry. It employs a ventilation system
with exhaust fans which help maintain temperature and moisture control. Though
both ammonia and hydrogen sulfide may be produced under anaerobic conditions in
poultry barns, when anaerobic activity ceases, both ammonia and hydrogen
sulfide cease to be produced. The goal of a dry litter system is to reduce the
moisture content of the litter to about 25%. At that moisture level the manure
becomes dry and the biological process slows down to where there is very little
odor generated within the manure.
The proposed facility
uses a state of the art design to regulate the environment in the houses and,
in particular, the moisture content of the litter. The houses will have
computers which control ventilation and tunnel fans for cooling in the summer
as well as, cooling cells for evaporative cooling when temperatures are very
hot. In the event there should be a power outage, the facility will be
equipped with a back-up generator capable of running all systems needed for
heating, cooling, and ventilating the poultry barns. The back-up generator will
be capable of operating three to four days without having to be refueled. The
houses will also have solid poured walls and an earthen floor graded to near
perfect level to inhibit moisture in the houses.
In addition, the
watering system for the birds can be a source of excess moisture in the barns.
Here, the houses will be equipped with a nipple-drinker watering system which
does not require open drinking water sources for the birds. The system will
also have a water meter which will be read every day showing how much water is
being consumed by the birds. That information will allow the operator to
quickly identify leakage problems so that it can be repaired promptly, thereby
preventing the excess accumulation of moisture.
If this facility is built
according to its design and operated in accordance with its permit, no ambient
air quality standards[4] will be exceeded.[5]
There would thus be no impacts to downwind receptors from the proposed poultry
farm.[6]
More specifically, though ammonia is produced in the anaerobic decomposition,
it degrades quickly and is usually at very low concentrations in poultry
barns. One study that measured ammonia levels downwind from poultry farms
exhaust fans indicated that at 100 and 300 feet, the levels of ammonia would be
less then 1 part per million and at 500 feet, the levels would be virtually
zero. Another study regarding hydrogen sulfide emissions found that there is
virtually no hydrogen sulfide emitted from broiler houses. Finally, studies
regarding particulate matter associated with broiler houses have found that at
approximately 100 feet downwind from exhaust fans on the house, particulate
matter was measured to be at background levels.
In addition to the
general issue of ambient air quality standards, the Department’s regulations
require consideration of the “downwind receptors” which include a consideration
of the impact the odors produced at the facility may have on the community.
The management of the facility is an important key to minimizing the production
of odor and thus any transport of odor away from the facility. As addressed
above, in a dry manure system, when the manure is kept properly dry, the
odor-producing biological processes slow down until very little odor is
generated within the manure. In other words, if a poultry farm operator is
instituting best management practices, a dry manure system should preclude the
generation of anaerobic odorous compounds. Furthermore, if a poultry farm
operator follows best management practices in the operation of his broiler
houses, when manure is removed from the poultry houses, the discharge of odors
should be minimized.[7]
Thus, the odors from the operation of Mr. Tippett’s facility will be minimal as
long as the facility is operated in accordance with his Permit and Facility
Management Plan.
Brian Tippett has over
twelve (12) years of experience in the poultry business. In his current
position as assistant broiler manager for Fieldale Farms Corporation, Mr.
Tippett is responsible for supervising ten (10) flock supervisors throughout South Carolina and Georgia. Mr. Tippett graduated from Clemson University with a Bachelor
of Science Degree in Poultry Business. In addition to his educational
background, Mr. Tippett has taken courses during his 12 years in the poultry
industry in the area of odor management.
Moreover, in the event
that the facility does produce a bad odor, the location and design of the
facility is important in minimizing its impact. Odors exhausted from poultry
facilities are transported through the environment by two principal mechanisms
- first, by wind or air movement. When it is windy, odors are quickly diluted
to the point where they are not detectable after short distances. Thus, the
impact of odors is greater when there is just a slight breeze. The second
method of transport is air drainage or ground inversion. In the late spring,
summer and early fall, the air next to the ground becomes cooler as the ground
cools. Since cool air is heavier than the warm air, the air will flow
downhill. The odors in that air will likewise flow downslope. The odor during
an inversion is often more pronounced because the air movement is not
sufficient to disperse the odors.
Coneross Baptist Church[8] and the
residents closest to the proposed facility are located predominately to the
east. Though the Church and these residents are located relatively close to
the outer edge of the facility, the exhaust fans of the poultry houses, where
virtually all of the exhaust from the houses will be emitted, will be located
on the end of the facility which is the greatest distance from the Church and
residents. The land to the east is also up gradient of the facility which
helps in reducing the impact of odor. The vegetative and tree buffers
surrounding most of the track site will also further reduce any impact of odors
to the local residents. Additionally, though the wind in the area usually blows
to the northeast, the exhaust from the fans will also be initially pushing the
exhausted air away from the Church and residents. This will further attenuate
the impact of odors from the facility.
Furthermore, the location
where the air will be dispersed is sloped to the west. Coneross Creek is
located down gradient to the west of the site. The grade of the land in that
area will thus result in the odors and particulates flowing down to the Creek
during nighttime inversions. Since Coneross Creek will capture any odor from temperature
inversions during the summer, it is very unlikely that these inversions would
cause odor problems to the east of the facility. Nevertheless, there are a few
residences which are located downhill from the barn site along Hesse Highway to the south. However, these residences are not as close as the residences to
the east and there are no residences in the area of the Creek in which the odor
from the facility will naturally flow. Furthermore, though the odors would
likely follow the creek, the distance and density of the vegetation would
significantly dissipate their impact.
4. The
application estimates a five percent die off rate of Mr. Tippett’s flocks.
Thus, Tippett would need to dispose of approximately 1,500 dead birds from each
30,000 bird flock. He proposes to do so in two burial pits on the northeast
border of the site, one less than 500 feet and the other 800 to 1,000 feet from
Mr. Crowe’s residence. These pits are a potential, though apparently minimal,
source of odor.
Health
Concerns
5. The
Petitioners presented a variety of potential health concerns related to the
permitting of the Tippett poultry farm. For instance, Oliver Medlin whose home
is located approximately two thousand seven hundred fifty (2,750) feet from the
center of the proposed Tippett site has been diagnosed with ALS, a degenerative
disease commonly known as Lou Gehrig’s Disease. He and his wife are concerned
that the poultry farm could cause him to require mechanical breathing and
worsen his condition both physically and mentally. Grant Crowe’s home is
located approximately one thousand one hundred fifty (1,150) feet from the
corner of the proposed poultry barns on the Tippett property. Though he does
not currently suffer from any health complications, he fears his health could
be adversely affected in the future. Tanya Mize’s home is located
approximately one thousand two hundred (1,200) feet from the proposed Tippett
poultry facility. She fears another incident of encephalitis, which she
suffered about twenty-one (21) years ago. She believes that fleas and
mosquitoes on her family farm caused her encephalitis and that Tippett’s
facilities would attract fleas and mosquitoes that could again result in her
contracting encephalitis. Mrs. Mize also suffers from bronchial problems,
Lupus, and torticollis and is currently on various medications for these
illnesses. Finally, James Holliday lives one thousand three hundred fifty (1,350)
feet from the proposed barn site. Mr. Holliday suffers from emphysema and
asthma and is concerned that air pollutants will aggravate his existing
condition.
Though these Petitioners’
have understandable concerns that absolutely must be considered, I find no
scientific basis to warrant the denial of Tippett’s permit. Rather I am
persuaded by the testimony of Dr. James J. Gibson, an employee of the Bureau of
Disease Control at DHEC.
Dr. Gibson examined the Petitioners’ health concerns. In addition to the
application, Dr. Gibson reviewed letters sent in by a number of the residents,
phone calls from a number of the residents describing their health conditions,
medical records submitted by some of the residents’ physicians, and if
documents were not clear, he called the doctor for clarification. Part of his
job is to determine whether the underlying illnesses that people have could be
made worse by the levels of ammonia or particles from the facility, “and then
you try to determine, best you can, the level of ammonia particles at their
home going to get into that range where it would reasonably make their illness
worse.”
After reviewing all
medical evidence presented by the Coneross Concerned Citizens, in some cases
speaking with their doctors and reviewing various air documents and reports,
Dr. Gibson concluded that in his “best judgment,” a person living at a distance
of over one thousand (1,000) feet from the proposed poultry barns would not
experience enough increased particulates or ammonia to cause significant
objective worsening of their clinical condition because of the proposed poultry
barns. As explained by Dr. Gibson, in making an evaluation regarding health
impacts, distance is important because distance attenuates particles and
ammonia emissions. It is also important to consider the nature of the facility
itself.
Therefore,
the evidence did not establish any probable health consequences from the
poultry barns as long as the barns are one thousand (1,000) feet away from
their homes. In other words, at a distance of 1,000 feet there would be a substantial
attenuation of any compounds produced at the facility such that there would not
be any significant or measurable increase in particulates or ammonia for a
person located at that distance. Though in other cases a 1,000 foot setback may
be insufficient, in this case the distance of the above residences from the
poultry barns is sufficient to safely conclude that there will be no adverse
health impacts.
CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW
Based upon the
foregoing Findings of Fact, I conclude the following as a matter of law:
General
Conclusions
1. The
Administrative Law Court has jurisdiction over this contested case matter
pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600(B) (Supp. 2005) and 24A S.C. Code Ann. Regs.
61-43, Part 200.70(G) (Supp. 2005). In contested case hearings, the
Administrative Law Judge is the fact finder. Brown v. S.C. Dep’t of Health
and Envtl. Control, 348 S.C. 507, 560 S.E.2d 410 (2002). In weighing the
evidence and deciding the merits of the case, the Administrative Law Judge must
make findings of fact by a preponderance of the evidence. Anonymous
(M-156-90) v. State Bd. of Medical Examiners, 329 S.C. 371, 496 S.E.2d 17
(1998). Furthermore, Petitioner bears the burden of proving its case by a
preponderance of the evidence. Nat’l Health Corp. v. S.C. Dep’t of Health
and Envtl. Control, 298 S.C. 373, 380 S.E.2d 841 (Ct. App. 1989).
Here, the Petitioner
opposes the issuance of a State Agricultural Permit. The review of an
Agricultural Permit application for a poultry facility is specifically
controlled by 24A S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 61-43, Part 200 (Supp. 2005). The
Petitioner thus has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence
that the evidence fails to support the issuance of a State Agricultural Permit
to Mr. Tippett for a poultry farm pursuant to Part 200 of Regulation 61-43.
2. As trier of
fact, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) is not compelled to accept an expert’s
testimony, but may give it the weight and credibility the ALJ determines it
deserves. Florence County Dep’t. of Social Serv. v. Ward,
310 S.C. 69, 425 S.E.2d 61 (Ct. App. 1992). Nevertheless, it is appropriate to
give due consideration to the Department’s staff’s utilization of its
specialized knowledge and expertise in determining this matter. See S.C.
Code Ann. § 1-23-330(4) (Supp. 2005).
Involuntary
Non-Suit
3. The
Petitioners allege that the operation of the proposed poultry farm violates the
State’s nuisance law and would diminish their property values. Several of the
Petitioner’s witnesses testified about their concerns that the value of their
property would decline if Mr. Tippett is allowed to construct and operate the
broiler facility. At the close of Petitioners case, Respondent Brian Tippett
moved for an Involuntary Non-Suit on the issue of civil nuisance law and
diminished property value.
Regulation 61-43, Part
200 provides that the purpose of the Regulation is:
To establish criteria for animal facilities and manure
utilization areas location as they relate to protection of the environment and
public health. The location of animal facilities and manure utilization areas
as they relate to zoning in an area is not covered in this regulation. Local
county or municipal governments may have zoning requirements and these
regulations neither interfere with nor restrict such zoning requirements.
Permit applicants should contact local municipal and county authorities to
determine any local requirements that may be applicable.
24A S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 61-43,
Part 200.10 (A)(5) (Supp. 2005). While Regulation 61-43, Part 200 gives fairly
broad discretion in determining separation distance concerning environmental
factors, it is not the purpose of the regulation to establish a land use mix
within an area. Those decisions are primarily the responsibility of the local
zoning authorities. See Bear Enter. v. County of Greenville, 319 S.C. 137, 459 S.E.2d 883 (Ct. App. 1995). Moreover, Regulation 61-43, Part
200 does not give the Department the authority to decline a permit merely
because it believes that the operation of a poultry farm at the location would
effect property values. In fact, generally the use of one’s property which
does not create a nuisance cannot be enjoined merely because it lowers property
values. Winget v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 242 S.C. 152, 130 S.E.2d 363
(1963). Furthermore, the ALC is not the proper forum to pursue nuisance
claims. See O'Cain v. O'Cain, 322 S.C. 551, 473 S.E.2d 460 (1996).
Therefore, I granted an Involuntary Non-Suit with respect to the general
aspects of nuisance, with exception to those factors relevant to the permitting
decision making process as set forth in 24A S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 61-43, Part
200.70 (Supp. 2005). I likewise granted an Involuntary Non-Suit with respect
to claims of diminished property value.
Separation
of Facility from Residences and State Waters
4. The
Petitioners remaining objection to Tippett’s permit is primarily that the “agricultural
facility” is located too close to the waters of the state and nearby residences.
Here, the applicable regulations provide that at a minimum, Tippett’s animal
facility must be 200 feet from the lot line of real property owned by another
person or 1,000 feet from the nearest residence unless by written consent of
the adjoining property owner. 24A S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 61-43, Part 200.80
(A)(1) and (G) (Supp. 2005). The facility also must be at least 100 feet from
any “waters of the State (including ephemeral and intermittent streams) located
down slope from the facility” and 50 feet from a ditch or swale that is not constructed
for site drainage. 24A S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 61-43, Part 200.80 (A)(2) and (3) (Supp.
2005). These minimum separation distances may reduced “if a permanent
vegetative water quality buffer, that meets NRCS standards at a minimum, is
installed and maintained.” Id.
In addition, in making
the decision of whether or not to grant a permit for this animal facility,
DHEC, and thus this Court, must also reasonably seek to prevent an increase “in
pollution of the waters and air of the State.” 24A S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 61-43,
Part 200.70 (E) (Supp. 2005). The minimum separation distances listed above may
also be extended if various factors warrant an additional separation distance. 24A
S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 61-43, Part 200.80 (F) (Supp. 2005). Those factors
include, “classification or impairment of adjacent waters,” “slope of the land”
or “down-wind receptors.” Part 200.70 (F)(4), (7) and (11).
The Petitioners contend
that DHEC so narrowly defined air pollution as to exclude all of the odorous
emissions from the animal waste except hydrogen sulfide, which they then
assumed would not be discharged from the facility. Thus, DHEC simply defined
the problem of air pollution away. To the contrary, I find that the evidence
established that there would not be an increase in air pollution from the
proposed poultry farm. Furthermore, the exhaust from Tippett’s barns will not
create adverse health consequences to the neighboring property owners or
unreasonably impact “down-wind receptors.” Moreover, with the additional
special conditions set forth below, the facility is located at a sufficient
distance from both ephemeral streams and waters of the State. Therefore, I
find that the evidence establishes that the facility’s barns are sufficiently
separated from the waters of the State and the downwind receptors (nearby
residences and church).
Nevertheless, the
evidence established that one of the burial pits would be located less than 500
feet from Mr. Crowe’s residence and the other between 800 and 1,000 feet from
his residence. The Respondents contend that this is both reasonable and
permitted by the Regulations. However, as noted above, an “animal facility”
must be 1,000 feet from the nearest residence, unless waived by written consent
of the adjoining property owner. Regulation 61-43 defines an “animal facility”
as:
an agricultural facility where animals are confined and fed
or maintained for a total of forty-five days or more in a twelve-month period
and crops, vegetative, forage growth, or post harvest residues are not
sustained in the normal growing season over any portion of the lot or facility. Structures used for the storage of animal manure and other animal
by-products from animals in the operation also are part of the animal
facility.
24A S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 61-43,
Part 50(F) (Supp. 2005) (emphasis added). As when seeking to determine the
meaning of statutes, the rules of statutory construction apply to the
interpretation of the meaning of regulations. See Converse Power
Corp. v. S.C. Dept. of Health and Envtl. Control, 350 S.C. 39, 564 S.E.2d
341 (Ct. App. 2002). “Where a word is not defined in a statute, our appellate
courts have looked to the usual dictionary meaning to supply its meaning.” Lee
v. Thermal Eng’g Corp., 352 S.C. 81, 91-92, 572 S.E.2d 298, 303 (Ct. App.
2002). The normal meaning of the word “by-product” is “1. Something produced
in the making of something else. 2. A secondary result; a side effect.” The American Heritage College Dictionary 193 (3d ed. 1993). This definition is echoed in Merriam-Webster
Online Dictionary defining “by-product” as “1: something produced in a usually
industrial or biological process in addition to the principal product; 2: a
secondary and sometimes unexpected or unintended result. . . .” Merriam-Webster
Online (2005). Therefore, the proposed facility fails to meet the siting
requirements of Regulation 61-43, Part 200.80(A)(5), with respect to the dead
bird disposal pits.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that State Agricultural Permit No. 18,991-AG be issued to C. Brian Tippett with
the following special conditions:
1. The Permittee, C. Brian
Tippett, shall give all residents whose homes are within one thousand three
hundred twenty (1,320) feet of the facility twenty-four (24) hours notice prior
to removing manure from the poultry houses. Once removed from the houses, the
manure shall be hauled off of the 84 acre tract within 24 hours of its
removal. In no event shall the Permittee allow manure to be exposed to rain;
2. The exhaust from the poultry
barns shall be vented from the westerly end of the facility; and
3. No land application of any
manure shall occur on the 84 acre tract of land upon which the Permittee’s facility
is located.
IT IS FURTHER
ORDERED that this case be remanded to the Department to determine a
suitable location or means for disposing of the dead birds. The Department
shall also determine a suitable location for the storage of manure removed from
the barns.
AND
IT IS SO ORDERED.
________________________________
Ralph
King Anderson, III
Administrative
Law Judge
September 6, 2006
Columbia, South Carolina
|
