Ozark chapter home
MOARK main page

May 23, 2005 
MOARK – Anderson Complex
McDonald County, Missouri

Facilities description: ~875,700-hen egg production complex. Hens are confined in stacked cages. Manure drops into pits under the cages and is mechanically moved to the end of the building, and then loaded onto trucks or stored in concrete holding pits outside the buildings. The wastes (called litter) are hauled away to be spread on waste application fields. Hens that die at the site are landfilled or sent to a renderer. Prior to mid-1997, this complex was operated by Vaughan Brothers Feeds (also known as V & B Feeds, V-B Feeds, V.B. Feeds and VB Feeds).

Information compiled by the Sierra Club from: Excerpts from files of the State of Missouri – Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) and Office of the Attorney General.

On Or AboutFile Description
03.18.05 MDNR Report on Inspection: “…drainage pipe located between barns five and six that discharges… solids deposited below the outfall of this pipe.” “…grain spillage and dust that is the most obvious source of contaminated runoff.” “Pit #8…is within one foot of overflowing.”
12.17.04 MDNR Report on Inspection: “…drainage pipe located between barns 5 and 6… solids deposited below the outfall of the pipe.” “…drainpipe from egg packaging room that shows a concentration of dark green solids below the outfall.”
09.20.04 MDNR Report on Inspection: “There was a discharge of nasty looking material from a stormwater drain on the south sides of the barns.” “…spillage below the loadout areas.”
05.06.04 MDNR Report on Inspection: “There is a settlement agreement and scope of work that was agreed to in 1997. The scope of work is currently not being followed.” “There is a resolution [requirement in the Settlement Agreement] for sampling wells, both on the property and wells not owned by MoArk. This was to be done once per month. This has not been performed and has not been reported for several years. This inspector [MDNR inspector George Parsons] has failed to monitor that portion and had assumed this resolution had been satisfied.”
03.29.04 MDNR Report on Inspection: “None of the class IA facilities owned and operated by MoArk currently has a permit.”
07.03.03 MDNR Inspection Report Form, Facility Not In Compliance: “Spread [wastes] too close to Buffalo Cr. [Creek]
06.04.03 MDNR Report on Inspection, Facility Not In Compliance: “Pit #4 had less than one foot of freeboard [available space before pit overflows]
01.10.03 MDNR Inspection Report Form: “Minor leaks and spills around farm.”
10.19.02 MDNR Report on Inspection: “Waste spread too close to a losing [connected to groundwater] stream.” “…discharge of milky colored water off the roof of the egg collection barn. The source of the contamination needs to be identified and then it needs to be contained.”
08.19.02 MDNR Report on Inspection: “…spillage around pit #5 where they were removing calcium. This area will need cleaned up…” “There is a wet area below the stormwater pond located at the southeast corner of barn #5. The pond is probably leaking through the berm.”
05.23.02 MDNR Report on Inspection: “There were several of the pits that were full. The freeboard should never be less than one foot.” “…spillage around some of the pits and loading areas. This should be cleaned up as soon as possible.” “There were solids observed below the outfall of the stormwater drain that drains stormwater from the west end of the area between Barns #4 and 5.” “The spillage observed around some of the manure pits was due to the agitator and splashing the manure over the concrete wall.”
10.31.01 MDNR Inspection Report, Facility Not In Compliance: “MoArk is operating without certified wastewater operators.” “There is a leak from the stormwater pond east of barn #5… Fix any leaks through the detention pond.” “A discharge of milky colored water was observed at the north side of the barns where the eggwash septic tanks are located.” “…I looked at land owned by Barclay, Luellan and Mailes. These were the properties most recently land applied upon. We had received at least two separate complaints recently on two of these sites… Often these ridges have been cleared down to a point where the ravine starts. Manure could be washed into the ravine.”
08.09.01
07.27.01
07.25.01
MDNR Inspection Report, Inspection Report Form and Inspection Report Form Attachment, Facility Not In Compliance: “There is a leak from the stormwater pond east of barn #5… Fix any leaks through the detention pond.” “Property owned by Ralph Schmidt was being land applied on. This site was not included with the list of land application sites submitted… Drainage thru [sic] could be losing stream [sic].” “Accumulations of dust were observed below the fans between the barns and at the ends of the barns. There was an accumulation of solids below the outfall from the drainpipe between barns #4 and #5.” “A varmint hole was observed below the concrete on the south side of barn #3. Barns # 6, 8 & 9 had a steady flow of water into the pit. There was some spillage around pit #7 serving barn #9 from solids being mixed into the pit. There was also a minor leak from the PATZ system at barn #3.”
06.01.01 MDNR Inspection Report and Inspection Report Form, Facility Not In Compliance: “MoArk is operating without certified wastewater operators.” “Spillage had occurred from the tanks receiving eggwash water. It had discharged out to the access road” “…leak out the backside of the PATZ system.”
02.07.01 MDNR Inspection Report: “A spill had occurred at barn #8.” “The spill occurred when the concrete trench below the cages inside the barns filled and seeped out under the west door.” The spill was not reported to MDNR.
10.25.00
11/01/00
MDNR Inspection Report Form and Inspection Report Form Addendum, Facility Not In Compliance: “Land application on the Davis property, spread too close to ravine… This may be a losing stream…” “There is a floor drain pipe that discharges out the NE corner of the egg process building.” Had a major water leak in barn #9. Water filled the cleanout pit and overtopped.” “Some manure…has been spilled in the area between barns 4 & 5.”
08.29.00
08.25.00
08.22.00
MDNR Notice of Violation (NOV) #4714SW, MDNR Correspondence, MDNR Inspection Report Form (and attachment), Facility Not In Compliance: “Manure had been spread less than 100 feet from Indian Creek on the Garren property. This is in non-compliance with the conditions in your settlement agreement dealing with set back distances on land application.” “a truck ran off a low water bridge @ Tiff City on 7/30/00 turning over in Buffalo Cr”
04.06.00 MDNR Inspection Report Form, Facility Not In Compliance: “Pit @ #8 barn has a leak…”
01.31.00 MDNR Inspection Report Form, Facility Not In Compliance: “dust has accumulated below fans on barns…”
12.22.99 NOV #4238SW, MDNR Correspondence and Report on Inspection, Facility Not In Compliance: “Land application of layer manure is not complying with the Best Management Practices on each and every site as required in the settlement agreement…Failed to comply with conditions of settlement agreement… Spread litter less than 100’ from Buffalo Creek on Nutting property…”
10.18.99 MDNR Memorandum: “On 10/13/99 I drove by the Scott Anderson Farm…I noticed the truck tracks going up the hill on that farm…I drove to the top of the ridge and saw 2 MoArk drivers…I then drove on around the ridge to the first field they had spread on. The percent slope on the south facing slope was close to 20%…The truck drivers had left before I got back to where they were. I did see Mr. Scott Anderson and told him they had spread on too steep of slopes and told him what field…I contacted MoArk on Monday 10/18/99. I met Bill Burch at the MoArk Anderson Farm. We drove out to the Scott Anderson farm to look at this field. They had pulled off this site and are not going to be spreading any more litter there. I showed Bill the hill where the slopes were excessive. They had spread another twenty acres since I was last there.”
01.28.99 MDNR Inspection Report Form, Facility Not In Compliance: “No permit”
01.22.99 Attorney General Correspondence to the Treasurer of McDonald County: “Enclosed please find a check in the amount of Seven Thousand Dollars ($7,000.00)…This check represents a civil penalty obtained by our office for violation of Missouri state environmental laws.”
08.19.98 Attorney General Correspondence regarding the October 9, 1997 Settlement Agreement: “Based upon their review, the MDNR believes that the [tested] water wells may be contaminated and also believes that MOARK has not complied with the terms of the Settlement Agreement…In my July 27, 1998 letter to you, I demanded stipulated penalties of $50,000.00 for MOARK’s failure to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement – a number substantially below what is authorized by the Settlement Agreement. MOARK has offered $1,000.00. This amount is inadequate and is hereby rejected…In the interest of compromise and to avoid the costs of litigation, we would be willing to accept a stipulated penalty of only $20,000.00.”
07.07.98 MDNR Correspondence and Report on Inspection, Facility Not In Compliance: “A need for improved waste handling was noted.” Facility still operating without a permit.
06.17.98 NOV #3174SW, MDNR Correspondence regarding a multiple complaint investigation conducted on April 8: “Manure from your laying operation was applied to [two fields]…in McDonald County where the soil samples were taken. The soil sample results showed excess nitrogen in the soil due to over application of manure on the fields.”
06.04.98 Attorney General Correspondence regarding the October 9, 1997 Settlement Agreement: “Moark has not submitted a copy of stormwater sampling results [as required]…Moark has not submitted a copy of manure testing at representative locations and frequencies at each land application site [as required]…Moark has not submitted copies of monthly water samples from three water supply wells within Moark’s property and from four water supply wells on representative and non-owned land application sites.
These violations have triggered the daily stipulated penalties in the Settlement Agreement. This letter is a formal demand for the full amount of the stipulated penalties…Our calculations indicate 126 days of violation for each of these violations.”
04.08.98 MDNR Report on Inspection, Facility Not In Compliance: “Facility is not meeting effluent limits…Sludge disposal problems”
03.19.98 Registered Geologist’s evaluation of MOARK land application sites: “During the evaluation, several locations were observed where wastes had been applied on grades that are steeper than those allowed by regulations. Waste had also been applied to some drainage channels.”
03.05.98 MDNR Correspondence and Report on Inspection, Facility Not In Compliance: Facility still operating without a permit
01.06.98 MDNR Complaint Investigation Information on complaint of December 30, 1997, recommendations to MOARK: “…avoid driving down lanes and slinging over side just to dispose of litter”
12.05.97 NOV #2913SW, MDNR Correspondence and Report on Inspection, Facility Not In Compliance: “…land applying inside the fifty (50) foot buffer zone of a drainage way..”
12.01.97 MDNR Complaint Investigation Information on complaint of November 6: “The caller reports that large volumes of animal waste from an egg-laying operation are being dumped on farmland, causing polluted runoff.”
11.24.97 MDNR Complaint Investigation Information on complaint of November 21: “MOARK spilling sludge from Jct 76 & Hwy 43 to field where it is being land applied,” complaint already referred to Sheriff’s Department of McDonald County
10.09.97 Settlement Agreement between MOARK and the State of Missouri: company agrees to perform and complete operational and permitting changes outlined in a ‘Scope of Work’
09.23.97 MDNR Report on Inspection, Facility Not In Compliance: “A need for improved waste handling was noted.”
06.06.97 A bankruptcy court approved MOARK’s purchase of the VB Feeds facilities
06.05.97 MDNR Memorandum: “The land application rates and procedures which have been and are currently being used by both V-B Feeds and Mo-Ark at there [sic] respective sites are not approved by the MDNR.”
03.19.97 MDNR e-mail archive: “From our inspections, last fall, we saw spillage or overflow at one or more of the manure pits as well as other potential contaminants…”
03.12.97 MDNR Report on Inspection, Facility Not In Compliance: “Evidence of bypassing…operating without the required LOA/permit…Facility is discharging without a permit…Operation and maintenance problems”
03.10.97 NOV #16229SW, MDNR Correspondence regarding multiple complaint investigations: “Staff from this office have documented a pattern of noncompliance with the Missouri Clean Water Law at this facility.”
03.04.97 MDNR Memorandum: “Their management of land application is getting worse. They are aware of the complaints and pressure from local residents and yet they still throw manure across property lines, spread any time in any weather [sic]. I have photos of dead chickens hanging on barbwire fence at property line [sic]. The trees, fence posts and leaves on the complainants [sic] property had manure splattered on them.”
01.29.97 MDNR Correspondence regarding a complaint investigation: “Problems were observed… Eliminate the practice of spreading on frozen or snow covered ground.”
01.21.97 MDNR Correspondence: “It was also noted during the department’s recent inspection that the irrigation equipment serving the egg wash was in poor shape. Cattle which were allowed to graze the irrigation field broke or bent the majority of the irrigation risers.”
09.27.96 NOV #2339SW, MDNR Correspondence and Report on Inspection, Facility Not In Compliance: “There was a discharge of process wastewater from the egg wash unit on that day. The discharge flowed into a small pond which drains and leaks into Huffaker Hollow, a losing stream. A losing stream is one which loses a majority of its flow to groundwater…”
01.17.96 MDNR e-mail archive: “[complainant] said that on 1/8/96 Vaughan Bros. were spreading layer litter on the snow. I looked at the site on the ninth and confirmed they did spread on snow covered soil.”
11.24.95 Correspondence from Wideman Engineering to MDNR: “While the facility was under suit for odor complaints, Mr. Vaughan had instructed staff to divert the waste water from the egg wash facility to the absorption field to avoid possible odors. This practice was continued much too long for the absorption field to handle the hydraulic loading…The main factor that caused the plugging and overflowing of the anaerobic tanks was the addition of the broken egg shells…The ‘sinkhole collapse’ is actually a burial site for some layer cages that were damaged by a wind storm while building 9 was under construction.”
10.23.95 NOV #2009SW, MDNR Correspondence and Report on Inspection, Facility Not In Compliance: “The process wastewater (egg wash) flows through six (6) concrete tanks connected in a series…The ports to each tank were open and deposits of sludge from the eggwash process was observed around each open port…Wastewater was discharging from each tile line which lies to the north of the barns. Wastewater was also surfacing approximately fifteen (15) feet down slope from the earthen basin. This appears to be a probable leak through the basin. Most of the surfacing wastewater from the eggwash process flows into a small pond. The pond has filled with a grayish colored sludge…A collapsed sinkhole has opened up below the upper tile line, directly below where it discharges.”
10.26.93 NOV #0565, MDNR Correspondence and Report on Inspection, Facility Not In Compliance: “Wastewater from the egg washing facility was discharging to an old farm pond…Manure was spread too close to a drainage…The spreader trucks traveled so close to the drainage that manure was thrown into the ditch.
Our office receives several complaints on this facility every year. The predominate complaint is odor. There have been complaints concerning improper disposal of dead birds which proved to be legitimate. In some of the land application fields an abundance of dead birds could be observed. This could add to the odor problem. The dead birds are getting into the manure pits. Often the birds escape then die of malnutrition outside the cages. Also dead birds are removed from the cages by employees and thrown into the manure pit. These dead bird carcasses need to be controlled…[and] are to go to the protein rendering plant in Southwest City, MO.”
09.21.92 MDNR Correspondence: “Our office has received complaints concerning the waste disposal at your caged layer operation…One complaint was concerning a spill at the laying facility…This spill flowed down into the county road ditch and for four to five hundred feet north before it was stopped…There have been several complaints concerning spillage of manure on the roads…Several complaints list spreading too close to residences…Your cooperation in appeasing some of these complaints will be appreciated.”
09.08.92 Correspondence from McDonald County Prosecuting Attorney to MDNR regarding three complaints of improper spreading practices: “We would request that you [sic] office contact the Sheriff’s Department…and take enforcement action against V.B. Feeds, if deemed appropriate…Please note the underlying frustration of all three complainants previously mentioned is that these matters have been continuously brought to the attention of the principals of the feed company and have been ignored.”
07.08.92 MDNR Correspondence: “Lime is rationed through the hen feed. This lime passes through the chickens into the manure pits…Last fall thirty loads of this material was stockpiled on the Clyde Gideon property…The stockpiling of material cannot be condoned.”
10.19.90 Geologic evaluation by James Brown, Division of Geology and Land Survey, determines that the facility’s receiving streams are losing flow to groundwater aquifers
08.31.90 MDNR Report on Inspection, Facility Not In Compliance: “The pits have become full of CaCO3 (lime) which passes through the chicken and settles out in the manure pit…The lime cannot be pumped and must be physically removed with a backhoe.”
06.05.90 MDNR Report on Inspection, Facility Not In Compliance: “A discharge was occurring off the property at the time of the inspection…There is a discharge of contaminated stormwater off the property.”
06.05.90 MDNR Correspondence: “The Letter of Approval number LA-5103710-0 issued May 1, 1990 for V.B. Feeds is considered void…since a discharge has occurred.”
04.05.90 MDNR Notice of Violation (NOV) #15551, Report on Inspection, Facility Not In Compliance: “The manure pit was discharging…A discharge was occurring off the property at the time of the inspection…The facility was operating without a Letter of Approval…There was spillage of material from the hauling and spreading equipment…The augers all have leaks or have leaked out the opposite side from the manure pit.”
11.21.88 MDNR Report on Inspection: “Some of the pits had overtopped…On the west side of the property, this runoff drained into the access road. The gravel was stained black from the poultry manure…Manure form the pits and the augers on the east side of the facility drain into a pond…The pond should be cleaned out, including the sludge from any chicken manure that has drained into the pond…One of the fields inspected had a drainageway through it…Manure was spread up to ten feet from the edge of the stream.”
02.05.88 MDNR Memorandum: “An inspection was conducted on January 11, 1988…Apparently on December 31, 1987, 55,000 birds were lost at the V & B Feeds poultry operation…Between 33,000 and 35,000 were buried at the landfill and the remaining 20,000 to 22,000 were buried on site at the poultry operation…At the time of the inspection there was still a pile of chickens at the west end of the barns…The worst problem [observed] was the collapse of the concrete wall of the manure pit during construction.”