notice

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. James Miller
Plant Manager
Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation
480 Co-Op Drive
P.O. Box 699
Timberville, Virginia 22853
Mr. Thomas Hayes
President
Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation
151 N. Main
PO Box 2519
Wichita, Kansas 67202-1410
CT Corporation System
Registered Agent
Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation
4701 Cox Rd.
Suite 301
Glen Allen, Virginia 23060
1
May 23, 2007
RE: NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE SUIT UNDER SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
ACT, CLEAN WATER ACT, AND OTHER AUTHORITIES CONCERNING THE
CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS CORPORATION POULTRY PROCESSING
PLANT IN TIMBERVILLE, VIRGINIA
Dear Mr. Miller, et al:
This letter is a notice issued on behalf of the Shenandoah Riverkeeper, Potomac
Riverkeeper (collectively referred to as “Riverkeepers”), and Waterkeeper Alliance
(“Waterkeeper”) of their intent to file a citizen suit pursuant to §§ 7002(a)(1)(A) and (B)
of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (“Solid Waste Disposal Act” or “SWDA”), 42 U.S.C. §
6972(a)(1)(A) and (B), § 505(b) of the Clean Water Act (“Clean Water Act” or “CWA”),
33 U.S.C. § 1365(b), and Virginia law, against Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation
(“Cargill” or “CMSC”) for violations of the SWDA, CWA, and Virginia law resulting
from facilities operated by Cargill in Timberville, Virginia.
I. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
The Shenandoah Riverkeeper is a program of the Potomac Riverkeeper that is dedicated
to the protection and restoration of the Shenandoah River and its watershed through
citizen action, advocacy and enforcement. The Shenandoah River begins at Front Royal,

Virginia at the confluence of the North Fork Shenandoah and the South Fork
Shenandoah. About 60 miles downstream, the Shenandoah flows into the Potomac River
at Harpers Ferry, West Virginia, before the waters flow into the Chesapeake Bay. The
North Fork of the Shenandoah begins in Brock’s Gap, about 50 miles upriver of New
Market, Virginia, while the South Fork originates at Port Republic, Virginia at the
confluence of the North, Middle and South Rivers. The Potomac Riverkeeper is a nonprofit
conservation organization dedicated to the protection and restoration of the
Potomac River, from its headwaters in West Virginia to the Chesapeake Bay, through
citizen action, advocacy and enforcement. Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc., based in
Irvington, New York, is an international non-profit organization that connects and
supports local Waterkeeper programs to provide a voice for waterways and their
communities worldwide.
Members of Shenandoah Riverkeeper, Potomac Riverkeeper, and Waterkeeper Alliance,
have, continue to, and will in the future, use the North Fork of the Shenandoah River, the
Shenandoah River, Potomac River, and Chesapeake Bay for purposes including, but not
limited to, aesthetic uses, potable water supply uses, and recreational uses such as
boating, fishing, canoeing, kayaking, and birding.
Contact information for Shenandoah Riverkeeper, Potomac Riverkeeper, and
Waterkeeper Alliance, is as follows:
Mr. Jeff Kelble
Shenandoah Riverkeeper
P.O. Box 405
Boyce, VA 22620-0405
(540) 837-1479
Dr. Ed Merrifield
Potomac Riverkeeper, Inc.
1717 Massachusetts Ave. N.W.
Suite 600
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 222-0707
Mr. William J. Gerlach, Jr., Esq.
Waterkeeper Alliance
50 S. Buckhout St., Suite 302
Irvington, NY 10533
(914) 674-0622, ext. 20
II. BACKGROUND
Cargill has acted in an irresponsible and unlawful manner by distributing highlyconcentrated
poultry processing wastes from its Timberville processing facility each day
from on or about August 27, 2001 to the present to a failing waste treatment operation,
2

the North Fork Reclamation and Reuse (“NFMRR”) facility operated by Shaeffer Clean
Water, L.L.C. (“SIL” or “Sheaffer”) in Timberville, before the facility dumps the wastes
into the North Fork of the Shenandoah River or disposes them on nearby cropland. In so
doing, Cargill has shirked its legal obligation to properly handle, transport, and dispose of
such wastes. Cargill’s dereliction of its legal duties has resulted, and is resulting, in
severe stream damage to the North Fork. Wastes from Cargill also enter the environment
through various raw waste overflows at pump stations that forward the waste to the
NFMRR.
In addition, Cargill and/or its predecessor 1 have dumped solid waste on land owned by
Cargill at its Timberville poultry processing facility, and in the waters of the North Fork
itself. The dumped solid waste includes but is not limited to construction debris, boards,
trash, large blocks of rock, and other assorted debris. The dumped waste remains on the
banks of, and directly in, the North Fork of the Shenandoah River, continuing to violate
water quality standards by impeding navigation, disfiguring the stream bottom,
endangering the health and safety of fishermen, swimmers, boaters, and other recreational
users, and impairing the aesthetic, aquatic, and recreational uses of the River.
A. The Cargill Meat Solutions Timberville Processing Facility
The CMSC plant in Timberline, Virginia is a further processing poultry cooking facility
with a mailing address of 480 Co-Op Drive, P.O. Box 699, Timberville, Virginia, 22853.
The plant, established in 1947, employs 325 people and produces 240,000 lbs./day of
processed meat products. The CMSC facility transports approximately 0.107 million
gallons per day (“MGD”) of poultry processing waste to the Sheaffer Clean Water,
L.L.C. (“Shaeffer” or “SIL”) North Fork Modular Reclamation and Reuse Facility
(“NFMRR”). Cargill acquired the poultry processing facility on or about August 27,
2001 when it purchased Rocco Quality Foods, Inc., and Rocco Enterprises, Inc.
B. Contractual Arrangements For Waste Disposal by Cargill
Cargill has entered into a contract with a private wastewater treatment facility, SIL that
specifies that SIL will, in exchange for a fee, provide treatment services to poultry
processing wastes sent to the SIL facility by the poultry processor. Cargill does not
pretreat its poultry processing wastes before transporting them to SIL. For waste
treatment services, Cargill must pay SIL a fee commencing at $19,964 per month plus
$3.98/1,000 gallons in any month in excess of 5,016,083 gallons, and increasing by 1%
per year over the prior year’s rate. In addition, Cargill must pay a premium based on
excess energy use at the SIL facility to treat the waste if the daily biochemical oxygen
demand (“BOD5”) load is exceeded.
1 With regard to the construction waste and other debris and waste that have been dumped in the North
Fork, the term “Cargill and/or its predecessor” is used here, but is subsequently stated as simply “Cargill”
because Cargill faces liability under the doctrine of successor liability at the Timberville facility for acts of
the predecessor operator at the facility.
3

Cargill is prohibited from sending wastes to SIL that exceed 2,063 lbs./day of BOD5 on a
monthly average basis. Cargill is also prohibited from sending wastes to SIL in water that
contain toxic or poisonous solids, liquids, or gases that can, singly or by interaction with
other wastes, injure or interfere with a waste treatment process, constitutes a hazard to
humans or animals, or creates a hazard in the receiving waters of the SIL facility.
Moreover, Cargill is prohibited from sending water or waste that has a pH lower than 5.5
or greater than 9.5, or any other corrosive property capable of causing damage or hazard
to structures, equipment, or personnel at the SIL facility. In addition, Cargill is
prohibited from sending solid or viscous substances to SIL that are capable of causing an
obstruction to the flow in the sewer lines, or otherwise interfere with the proper operation
of the wastewater facilities. Finally, Cargill is prohibited from sending to SIL any
hazardous substance whose discharge is legally prohibited.
C. Violations of Waste Treatment Contractual Obligations By Cargill
Cargill has, and continues to have, numerous violations of their contract with SIL that
result in illegal discharges of waste to the surrounding watershed. Wastewater flows
from Cargill exceed the capacity allocated for them by the NFMRR. Additionally,
wastewater from Cargill has regularly exceeded the BOD5 monthly loading limitations
since August, 2001, including 10 monthly BOD5 loading exceedances since June, 2005.
Moreover, Cargill has exceeded the TN design concentrations set by the NFMRR for
Cargill.
On January 23, 2007, SIL filed a lawsuit against Cargill alleging breach of contract and
seeking injunctive and declaratory relief 2 . The lawsuit accuses Cargill of sending
“substances prohibited by the Contract” to the Facility, “sending wastewater with a BOD5
level that exceeds the aeration capacity of the system,” combining stormwater flow with
wastewater, exceeding BOD5 monthly loading contractual limitations, and changing
production processes at the facility resulting in differing wastewater flow than originally
contemplated in the contract. 3 Because of these alleged breaches, SIL claims to have
suffered physical damage at its treatment facilities in addition to numerous violations of
its discharge permit. 4
D. Cargill’s Discharges to The NFMRR Routinely Result in NFMRR’s
Violation of Discharge Permit VA0090263
The NFMRR routinely violates effluent limits in its discharge permit, VA0090263, for
TP, TN, ammonia, fecal coliform, total suspended solids (“TSS”), carbonaceous
biochemical oxygen demand (“CBOD5”), BOD5, and pH, and land application rate limits
for phosphorus pentoxide and plant available nitrogen. These violations have occurred
2 The legal action, SIL Clean Water LLC v. Cargill Turkey Products, Inc., Adversary Proceeding No. 07-
00048, was filed by SIL against Cargill in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
January 23, 2007. On February 14, 2007, by Order of Judge Jacqueline P. Cox, this matter was transferred
to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Virginia.
3 SIL Clean Water LLC v. Cargill Turkey Products, Inc., Complaint at 5-6.
4 Id. at p. 5.
4

since October 15, 1999, and continue to the present. The violations are set out in greater
detail and specificity in Appendix A to the notice, which is incorporated by reference.
Cargill is legally responsible for violations occurring on or after August 27, 2001.
The NFMRR facility has, since the imposition of annual load effluent limits for total
phosphorus in November, 2004, exceeded the limits by many magnitudes in 2004, 2005,
2006, and 2007. Phosphorus discharges from the NFMRR exceed and have exceeded
effluent limits by over 800%. In addition, annual TN load limits that became effective in
November, 2004, were exceeded by a substantial margin in 2005 and 2006. SIL reported
violations of its effluent limits for CBOD5 (monthly average concentration) and ammonia
(monthly average load and monthly average concentration) as recently as April 30, 2007.
Other discharges at the NFMRR have resulted from spills at several pump stations that
direct waste to the facility. These spills have occurred consistently, but irregularly, from
June 1, 2002 to the present. Five spills of up to 150,000 gallons of poultry processing
wastewater into the North Fork have occurred at the Cargill pump station, including the
latest one on June 9, 2006.
The overwhelming majority of the influent wastewater to the NFMRR comes from PPC
and Cargill; the poultry processors generate, handle, and then transport over 1.1 MGD of
their poultry processing wastes to the SIL. Over 23% of the phosphorus and 11% of the
nitrogen in the influent wastewater that is sent to NFMRR is from Cargill.
1. Cargill Transports Highly Concentrated Poultry Processing
Wastes to the NFMRR
Since August 27, 2001, Cargill has each day sent, and continues to send, raw poultry
processing waste to the NFMRR that contains extremely elevated levels of nitrogen and
phosphorus, ammonia, fecal coliform, CBOD, BOD, TSS, and lesser amounts of toxic or
hazardous substances such as arsenic, selenium, zinc, copper, and pathogens, as well as
chemical disinfectants such as sulfuric acid and quaternary ammonia, and biocides such
as tributyltin (“TBT”). Cargill each day fails, and has failed, to pretreat its poultry
processing wastes before transporting them to the NFMRR since August 27, 2001.
2. Pollution Loads Sent From Cargill Exceed, and Have Exceeded,
the Capacity of the NFMRR and Overburden the Facility
SIL describes the vast amount of poultry processing waste it receives from PPC and
Cargill as “high-strength wastewater”. This influent wastewater is high in BOD5,
nitrogen, phosphorous, and oil and grease. The level of BOD5 and amount of nitrogen
that the NFMRR receives in the influent wastewater exceeds, and has exceeded, the
design capacity of the facility since August 27, 2001. Also, influent flows from Cargill
have exceeded the NFMRR capacity allocated for the facility since that date. Cargill
exceeds the TN concentrations the NFMRR was designed to treat (“design
concentrations”). These excess influent loads have overwhelmed and overburdened the
5

NFMRR treatment facility such that since August 27, 2001 much of the phosphorus and
nitrogen waste enters the North Fork after inadequate treatment.
3. Wastes From Cargill Severely Disrupt, and Have Disrupted,
Treatment Operations at NFMRR
Since August 27, 2001, Cargill has transported chemical disinfectants such as sulfuric
acid and quaternary ammonia to the NFMRR in quantities that have severely disrupted
treatment operations at the facility. These treatment plant disruptions have corrupted
biological treatment processes at the NFMRR several times since August 27, 2001, for
sustained periods of time, resulting in the discharge of large amounts of TP, TN,
ammonia, fecal coliform, and other pollutants into the North Fork.
In light of the above, it is not surprising that the raw poultry processing wastes from
Cargill have resulted in numerous, high magnitude, violations of effluent limits since
August 27, 2001, and have overwhelmed the treatment systems at the NFMRR, often
rendering them ineffective since that date. This has resulted in severe damage to several
miles of the North Fork downstream of the NFMRR, and contributes to the ongoing
impairment of portions of the Potomac River, and nearly 90% of the Chesapeake Bay,
downstream.
E. Cargill Dumps Construction Waste and Debris Adjacent To and Directly
Into the North Fork of the Shenandoah River
Cargill has dumped solid waste on land owned by Cargill at its Timberville poultry
processing facility, and in the waters of the North Fork itself. The dumped solid waste
includes but is not limited to construction debris, boards, trash, large blocks of rock, and
other assorted debris. The dumped waste remains on the banks of, and directly in, the
North Fork of the Shenandoah River, continuing to violate water quality standards by
impeding navigation, disfiguring the stream bottom, endangering fishermen, swimmers,
boaters, and other recreational users, and impairing the aesthetic, aquatic, and
recreational uses of the River.
The Shenandoah Riverkeeper contacted Wesley Carter of Cargill about the dumped waste
and debris on October 25, 2006 and November 10, 2006; despite the notification, Cargill
has taken no action to clean up the dumped construction waste and debris in the North
Fork adjacent to its Broadway facility.
F. Cargill’s Discharges to the NFMRR Contribute Significantly to the
Ecological Impairment of the North Fork of the Shenandoah River and the
Surrounding Watershed
Many sections of the North Fork of the Shenandoah River are in dire shape. Large
stretches of river bottom downstream of the discharge from the SIL NFMRR are choked
with algae and decaying organic material, and the water is rife with pollutants, including
a severe overload of phosphorus and nitrogen. Levels of phosphorus immediately
6

upstream of the NFMRR discharge in the vicinity of Timberville have been documented
at 0.01 mg/l as recently as September 28, 2006, while levels of phosphorus downstream
of the NFMRR discharge were recorded on the same day at 1.4 mg/l. This means that
levels of phosphorus in the North Fork are 140 times higher downstream of the discharge
than they are upstream of the discharge. Nitrogen is 25% higher in the stream
downstream of the outfall when compared with upstream levels. These extremely high
levels of phosphorus and nitrogen are the result of poultry processing wastes sent to
NFMRR for disposal by PPC and Cargill, and then dumped into the North Fork after
inadequate treatment.
Over 52.97 miles of the North Fork, including large stretches downstream of the SIL
outfall, are listed on the 2004 Virginia “dirty waters” list for fecal coliform impairment.
Fecal coliform bacteria are present in the intestines of warm-blooded animals and are an
indicator that the aquatic community has been contaminated by fecal matter.
In addition, Cargill has dumped solid waste on land owned by Cargill at its Timberville
poultry processing facility, and in the waters of the North Fork itself. The dumped solid
waste includes but is not limited to construction debris, boards, trash, large blocks of
rock, and other assorted debris. The dumped waste remains on the banks of, and directly
in, the North Fork of the Shenandoah River, continuing to violate water quality standards
and impeding navigation, disfiguring the stream bottom, endangering fishermen,
swimmers, boaters, and other recreational users, and impairing the aesthetic, aquatic, and
recreational uses of the River.
Moreover, there is compelling scientific evidence that the entire Shenandoah River
system is an ecosystem in trouble. Numerous fish kills in the Shenandoah River system
have occurred recently. In the spring of 2007, fish collection and monitoring efforts by
the Shenandoah River Fish Kill Task Force indicate that at least 15% of largemouth and
smallmouth bass collected appear to be developing lesions or are otherwise developing
health issues. There have also recently been several minor fish kills of redbreast sunfish,
smallmouth bass, and suckers, and redbreast sunfish are not showing signs of recovery.
It appears from these observations that there are emerging or re-emerging fish health
problems from previous years that are continuing and re-occurring. Notably, in early
December, 2006, fish kills numbering in the thousands occurred, including northern
hogsuckers in the main stem of the Shenandoah, along with dead sunfish and
smallmouth bass on the North Fork and South Forks of the river. This is the first late fall
fish kill that has been noticed in the Shenandoah River system in recent times. There
have been fish kills on the North Fork of the Shenandoah River in recent years, including
in areas downstream of the SIL NFMRR. Each spring, commencing in 2004, there has
been lethality of about 80% of the adult smallmouth bass and redbreast sunfish in the
North Fork, and many fish have been found with lesions.
State officials are using continuous monitoring and are doing ongoing grab sample
monitoring to look for the presence of ammonia. Data show that ammonia in the
Shenandoah is significantly higher than in other Virginia rivers. Ammonia results in
chronic and acute toxicity to fish and has long been suspected to be a contributing factor
7

to health issues in fish. Additional data from the Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality (“VADEQ”) indicate the presence of heavy metals such as Arsenic in
concentrations over 10 times the DEQ screening level in fish caught in the North Fork
and elsewhere in the Shenandoah River system. Arsenic is present in poultry litter and
poultry processing waste.
Finally, in 2006 the group American Rivers named the Shenandoah River system as one
of America’s most endangered rivers because of threats to the ecosystem on many fronts,
including from extensive development in the Shenandoah River valley.
The Shenandoah River flows into the Potomac River which, in turn, flows into the
Chesapeake Bay. According to EPA, due to excess nitrogen and phosphorus releases in
the watershed, over 90% of the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal waters are listed on the §
303(d) lists of impaired waters in Maryland and Virginia. Excess nitrogen and
phosphorus results in eutrophication, associated algae blooms, decreases in water clarity,
smothering of submerged aquatic vegetation, and extensive hypoxia and anoxia from
oxygen deprivation; over 40% of Bay waters in recent summers have been in hypoxic or
anoxic “dead zone” conditions. EPA data indicate that approximately 59 to 64% of the
TN load and 66 to 68% of the TP load released by the NFMRR reaches the Bay.
III. VIOLATIONS OF THE SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ACT
A. Cargill Contributes and Has Contributed, to the Past or Present
Handling, Storage, Treatment, Transportation or Disposal of Solid and
Hazardous Waste That May Present an Imminent and Substantial
Endangerment to Health or the Environment
The citizen suit provision of Section 7002(a)(1)(B) of the SWDA, 42 U.S.C. §
6972(a)(1)(B), specifies that a citizen may bring suit “against any person … who has
contributed or is contributing to the past or present handling, storage, treatment,
transportation, or disposal of any solid or hazardous waste which may present an
imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment”.
Cargill has, since August 27, 2001, each day contributed, and is continuing to contribute
to, the past and present handling, storage, treatment, and disposal of solid and hazardous
wastes that may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the
environment by contributing to the handling of poultry processing waste, storing the
waste, transporting the waste to the NFMRR, and then disposing of the waste either on
the land via an overflow of a pump station, or by dumping it into the North Fork or on
nearby land through the NFMRR system. Cargill also contributes to the handling,
transportation and disposal of construction waste and debris in the North Fork, and on
adjacent riparian lands, that may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to
health or the environment.
8

1. Cargill is a “Person” Under the SWDA
Cargill is a corporation that is a “person” under 42 U.S.C. § 6903(15) 5 .
2. The Poultry Processing Waste and Construction Waste and Debris
Handled, Stored, Transported, and Disposed of by Cargill is “Solid
Waste” and “Hazardous Waste”
Poultry processing waste is discarded material that is and has been handled, stored,
transported, and disposed of each day by Cargill since August 27, 2001. Such waste is
“solid waste” under both the statutory definition of the term at 42 U.S.C. § 6903(27) and
the regulatory definition at 40 CFR § 257.2 6 . This waste includes discarded solid,
semisolid, and liquid material from industrial operations. Moreover, various constituents
in the waste constitute “hazardous waste” under 40 CFR § 261.3. These constituents
include chemical disinfectants such as sulfuric acid and quaternary ammonia and
quaternary ammonium, biocides such as TBT, and other toxic or hazardous substances
present in the waste such as arsenic, selenium, copper and zinc.
Additionally, Cargill has dumped solid waste on land owned by Cargill at its Timberville
poultry processing facility, and in the waters of the North Fork itself. The dumped solid
waste includes but is not limited to construction debris, boards, trash, large blocks of
rock, and other assorted debris. The dumped waste remains on the banks of, and directly
in, the North Fork of the Shenandoah River, contributing to violations of water quality
standards by impeding navigation, disfiguring the stream bottom, endangering the health
and safety of fishermen, swimmers, boaters, and other recreational users, and impairing
the aesthetic, aquatic, and recreational uses of the River.
3. Cargill Contributes, and Has Contributed to, the Handling,
Storage, Transportation, and Disposal of Solid Waste and Hazardous
Waste
Poultry processing operations of Cargill generate over 0.1 MGD of highly concentrated
poultry processing waste at its facilities in Timberville, Virginia. After the waste is
generated, Cargill stores it, handles it, and transports it to the NFMRR for ultimate
disposal each day in the same manner it has done since August 27, 2001. In so doing,
Cargill contributes, and has contributed to, the handling, storage, and transportation of
Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste.
5 The term “person” in 42 U.S.C. § 6903(15) is defined to include: “an individual, trust, firm, joint stock company, corporation
(including a government corporation), partnership, association…”
6 “Solid waste means any garbage, refuse, sludge from a waste treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control
facility and other discarded material, including solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous material resulting from industrial,
commercial, mining, and agricultural operations, and from community activities, but does not include solid or dissolved materials in
domestic sewage, or solid or dissolved material in irrigation return flows or industrial discharges which are point sources subject to
permits under section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (86 Stat. 880), or source, special nuclear, or
byproduct material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (68 Stat. 923). “
9

Cargill contributes to the disposal Cargill of poultry processing waste in several ways.
First, Cargill disposes of poultry processing wastes by sending them each day to an entity
that cannot provide adequate treatment to the wastes that satisfies discharge permit limits
in VA 0092063. This is akin to directly disposing such wastes into the North Fork. Next,
Cargill has transported, and continues to transport, substances in poultry processing waste
such as sulfuric acid, quaternary ammonia, quaternary ammonium, and tributyltin, that
they disable the biological treatment units at the NFMRR. Third, Cargill has,
intermittently since August 27, 2001, disposed of poultry processing wastes on land, and
into adjacent waters, via overflows at various pump stations on their property that are part
of the collection system for the poultry processing wastewater. As such, Cargill
contributes, and has contributed to, the “disposal” of Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste.
Additionally, with regard to the construction waste and debris that has been dumped in
riparian areas adjacent to the Cargill facility, and into the North Fork, Cargill has
contributed, and continues to contribute to, to the handling, storage, transportation and
disposal of hazardous and solid waste. Solid waste dumped by Cargill on riparian land
and directly into the North Fork includes construction debris, boards, trash, large blocks
of rock, and other assorted debris. These wastes were handled by Cargill, and were
transported to and disposed of both on the banks of the North Fork and in the North Fork
itself. These wastes cause substantial damage to the environment and continue to violate
water quality standards by impairing aesthetic, recreational, navigational and aquatic uses
of the water, smothering aquatic habitat, endangering boaters, fishermen and swimmers,
inundating riparian wetlands and floodplain, and altering the hydrology of the North
Fork.
B. The Solid Waste or Hazardous Waste Contributed By Cargill May
Present an Imminent or Substantial Endangerment to Health or the
Environment
Under Section 7002(a)(1)(B) of the SWDA, 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1)(B), a person who has
contributed, or is contributing, to the handling, storage, treatment, transportation or
disposal of solid or hazardous waste that may present an imminent and substantial
endangerment to health or the environment may be held liable under the SWDA. The
wastes that have been generated, stored, transported, and disposed by Cargill each day
since August 27, 2001, and continue to be generated, stored, transported, and disposed by
Cargill, including the wastes that were dumped by Cargill on the banks of the North Fork
and in the river itself, present an imminent and substantial endangerment to the health
and the environment.
1. Environmental Damage in the Shenandoah River, Potomac River
and Chesapeake Bay Watersheds is an Indicator of Endangerment to
Health or the Environment
The degraded condition of water quality downstream of the NFMRR discharge, which
consists largely of untreated or partially-treated poultry processing waste that PPC and
Cargill transport to the NFMRR for disposal, is beyond dispute. While aquatic habitat
10

immediately upstream of the outfall discharge is relatively healthy and provides adequate
spawning conditions for certain fish, downstream of the discharge the aquatic habitat is a
forest of algal growth fueled by the excess phosphorus and nitrogen from the NFMRR
discharge. This habitat is not conducive to fish spawning and is indicative of a nutrient
overloaded ecosystem. Water quality tests corroborate the state of the river.
Immediately upstream of the outfall, phosphorus concentrations of 0.01 mg/l were
recorded in the North Fork. Downstream of the discharge, phosphorus concentrations of
1.4 mg/l were recorded. The downstream concentration of phosphorus is 14o times
higher than the upstream concentration. Very elevated concentrations of phosphorus
have been recorded up to 6 miles downstream of the discharge.
Moreover, the construction waste and other debris that smother a portion of the North
Fork adjacent to the Cargill plant, impair the aesthetic, recreational, navigational, and
aquatic uses of the River, endanger the safety of boaters, fishermen and swimmers,
inundate riparian wetlands and floodplain, and alter the hydrological profile of the North
Fork.
A second indicia of the forlorn condition of waters downstream of the discharge is the
listing of 52.97 miles of the North Fork, including areas downstream of the NFMRR, for
fecal coliform impairment on the 2004 Virginia §303(d) list of impaired waters.
Additionally, there is compelling scientific evidence that the entire Shenandoah River
system is an ecosystem in trouble. Numerous fish kills in the Shenandoah River system
have occurred recently. In the spring of 2007, fish collection and monitoring efforts by
the Shenandoah River Fish Kill Task Force indicate that at least 15% of largemouth and
smallmouth bass collected appear to be developing lesions or are otherwise developing
health issues. There have also recently been several minor fish kills of redbreast sunfish,
smallmouth bass, and suckers. Indeed, redbreast sunfish are not showing signs of
recovery. It appears from these observations that there are emerging or re-emerging fish
health problems from previous years that are continuing and re-occurring. Notably, in
early December, 2006, fish kills numbering in the thousands occurred, including northern
hogsuckers in the main stem of the Shenandoah, along with dead sunfish and
smallmouth bass on the North Fork and South Forks of the river. This is the first late fall
fish kill that has been noticed in the Shenandoah River system in recent times. There
have been fish kills on the North Fork of the Shenandoah River in recent years, including
in areas downstream of the SIL NFMRR. Each spring, commencing in 2004, there has
been lethality of about 80% of the adult smallmouth bass and redbreast sunfish in the
North Fork, and many fish have been found with lesions.
State officials are using continuous monitoring and are doing ongoing grab sample
monitoring to look for the presence of ammonia. Data show that ammonia in the
Shenandoah is significantly higher than in other Virginia rivers. Ammonia results in
chronic and acute toxicity to fish and has long been suspected to be a contributing factor
to health issues in fish. Additional data from VADEQ indicates the presence of heavy
metals such as Arsenic in concentrations over 10 times the DEQ screening level in fish
11

caught in the North Fork and elsewhere in the Shenandoah River system. Arsenic is
present in poultry litter and poultry processing waste.
A fourth manifestation of the abhorrent state of the waters downstream of the NFMRR
discharge is the state of the Chesapeake Bay. According to EPA, due to excess nitrogen
and phosphorus releases in the watershed, over 90% of the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal
waters are listed on the § 303(d) lists of impaired waters in Maryland and Virginia.
Excess nitrogen and phosphorus results in eutrophication, associated algae blooms,
decreases in water clarity, smothering of submerged aquatic vegetation, and extensive
hypoxia and anoxia from oxygen deprivation; over 40% of Bay waters in recent summers
have been in hypoxic or anoxic “dead zone” conditions. EPA data indicate that
approximately 59 to 64% of the TN load, and 66 to 68% of the TP load released by the
SIL NFMRR, reaches the Bay.
In sum, as indicated by the environmental degradation of the North Fork of the
Shenandoah River downstream from the NFMRR discharge outfall, degraded and
impaired conditions in the Shenandoah River system, the Potomac River system, and the
Chesapeake Bay, it is indisputable that deplorable water quality and ecological conditions
exist in these ecosystems. This damage was caused, in part, by the type of wastes
contributed by Cargill each day since August 27, 2001 to the NFMRR for disposal in the
North Fork, and on nearby cropland, and dumped in overflows at the Cargill pump
station, and is therefore an indicator of the endangerment posed to health or the
environment that is posed by these wastes. Damage is also caused by the assorted
construction waste and debris that was dumped by Cargill on the banks of, and in the
North Fork. These damages are an indicator of the endangerment to health or the
environment that is posed by these wastes.
2. The Solid and Hazardous Wastes Contributed by Cargill Endanger
Health or the Environment
The poultry processing wastes generated by Cargill that have been transported by the
poultry processor to the NFMRR each day since August 27, 2001 include organic
material and other substances with high levels of BOD5, TSS, nutrients (phosphorus and
nitrogen), and pathogens, as well as chemical disinfectants such as sulfuric acid,
quaternary ammonia, and trisodium phosphate, and biocides such as TBT, and other toxic
or hazardous substances such as arsenic, selenium, copper and zinc. Such waste is “solid
waste” under both the statutory definition of the term at 42 U.S.C. § 6903(27) and the
regulatory definition at 40 CFR § 257.2 7 . This waste includes discarded solid, semisolid,
and liquid material from industrial operations. Moreover, various constituents in the
waste constitute “hazardous waste” under 40 CFR § 261.3. Additionally, the
7 “Solid waste means any garbage, refuse, sludge from a waste treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control
facility and other discarded material, including solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous material resulting from industrial,
commercial, mining, and agricultural operations, and from community activities, but does not include solid or dissolved materials in
domestic sewage, or solid or dissolved material in irrigation return flows or industrial discharges which are point sources subject to
permits under section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (86 Stat. 880), or source, special nuclear, or
byproduct material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended (68 Stat. 923). “
12

construction waste and debris deposited on the banks of the North Fork, and in the River
itself, contributes to violations of water quality standards; it smothers aquatic life, impairs
recreational, navigational, and aesthetic uses, endangers the health and safety of boaters,
fishermen and swimmers, inundates riparian wetlands and floodplain, and alters the
hydrological profile of the North Fork. The poultry processing wastes and construction
debris enter the environment through discharge to water, or land application to soils, and
endanger health and the environment in numerous ways, as follows:
Nutrients (Phosphorus and Nitrogen) – According to EPA, phosphorus in poultry
processing wastewater comes primarily from blood, manure, bone, soft tissue, cleaning
and sanitizing compounds such as trisodium phosphate tribasic, and trisodium phosphate
in detergents, and boiler water additives to control corrosion. Blood, urine, and feces are
significant sources of nitrogen in poultry processing wastewater. Nitrogen and
phosphorous occur in concentrations as high as 177 mg/l (TN) and 66 mg/l (TP) in
poultry processing waste that is sent to the NFMRR.
Excess nitrogen and phosphorus result in impacts to aquatic habitat such as
eutrophication, associated algae blooms, decreases in water clarity, smothering of
submerged aquatic vegetation, and extensive hypoxia and anoxia from oxygen
deprivation. Many fish species cannot live in water with low levels of dissolved oxygen.
The Chesapeake Bay acts as a “nutrient sink” for all nutrients that enter the watershed;
over 90% of the Bay is listed as “impaired” primarily due to excess nutrients.
Additionally, 40% of Bay waters in recent summers have been in hypoxic or anoxic
“dead zone” conditions due to excess nutrient loads.
Phosphorus is listed as a hazardous substance under regulations promulgated pursuant to
the CWA, 40 CFR Table 116.4A, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 40 CFR Table 302.4.
Total Phosphorus and Nitrogen - The wastes discharged from the NFMRR into the North
Fork have exceeded total phosphorus loading effluent limits in discharge permit
VA0090263 in 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 by magnitudes of up to 800%. In addition,
total nitrogen loading annual effluent limits have been exceeded in 2005 and 2006.
Ammonia Nitrogen – Ammonia nitrogen is a form of nitrogen that appears in poultry
processing wastes as the result of cleaning and sanitizing agents and organic nitrogen
mineralization. It is directly toxic to fish and other aquatic life, reduces dissolved oxygen
concentrations in receiving waters, and can be responsible for eutrophic conditions in
estuarine environments such as the Chesapeake Bay.
The wastes discharged from the NFMRR violated Ammonia Nitrate monthly effluent
limits on at least 20 separate occasions since March, 2003, including as recently as
March, 2007, for a total of at least 610 days of violations.
Nitrates – Nitrates can appear in poultry processing wastewaters due to nitrite and nitrate
salts used in further processing. Excess nitrates in groundwater are a cause of
13

methemoglobenemia (“blue baby syndrome”) in infants and young livestock that
consume the water. The nitrates reduce the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood,
resulting in this syndrome.
Trisodium Phosphate – Cargill uses, and has used, trisodium phosphate (“TSP”) as a
cleaning and disinfecting agent. The use of TSP adds additional phosphorus to the
wastewater, thereby contributing to the extreme magnitude exceedances of TP effluent
limits that have been recorded from the NFMRR discharge in 2004, 2005, 2006, and
2007. As noted above in the phosphorus discussion, the environmental impacts of
nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus are well documented.
Moreover, in the wastestream, TSP interferes with the biological treatment process at the
NFMRR. In so doing, poultry processing wastes are allowed to escape with minimal or
no treatment into the North Fork and cause environmental harm to the river and the fish
and aquatic life that live in it.
Quaternary Ammonia/Quaternary Ammonium – This substance is used in poultry
processing as a disinfectant, surfactant and biocide. In the wastestream, quaternary
ammonia interferes with the biological treatment process at the NFMRR. Poultry
processing wastes are allowed to escape with minimal or no treatment into the North Fork
and cause environmental harm to the river and the fish and aquatic life that live in it.
Sulfuric Acid – Sulfuric acid is used by Cargill for uses such as lowering the pH and
BOD5 of wastewaters, opening drains, or providing disinfection. Sulfuric acid is a listed
hazardous substance. Because of the corrosive and reactive nature of the substance, it is
also a “characteristic” hazardous waste. In addition, it is a carcinogen in certain forms.
Sulfuric acid placed in the wastewater stream interferes with the biological treatment
process at the NFMRR. Poultry processing wastes are allowed to escape with minimal or
no treatment into the North Fork and cause environmental harm to the river and the fish
and aquatic life that live in it. Additionally, the addition of sulfuric acid by Cargill has
badly corroded the concrete and rebar in the sewer pipes and structures that run from PPC
to the NFMRR.
Tributylin (“TBT”) – Tributylin is a biocide and disinfectant that has been found in the
effluent of the NFMRR. TBT interferes with the normal hormonal processes of receptor
organisms, causes imposex and intersex transformation in aquatic life, and immune
suppression and increased susceptibility to lethal disease in other organisms. TBT results
in sublethal effects and mortality at very low concentrations.
Bacteria and Pathogens (Fecal Coliform) – Fecal coliform counts are an indicator of
fecal contamination of water and the presence of enteric pathogenic bacteria, viruses, and
parasites of enteric origin. Manure in poultry processing wastewaters, commingled with
processing and sanitary wastewaters, results in large fecal coliform counts. Bacterial
contamination in water, as indicated by high levels of fecal coliform, impacts public
health through ingestion by causing gastrointestinal illnesses and, in severe cases,
14

cholera. In addition, high fecal coliform levels indicate the possible presence of
pathogens of enteric origin such as Salmonella sp. and Campylobacter jejuni,
gastrointestinal parasites, and pathogenic enteric viruses.
Fecal contamination of drinking water can lead to diseases such as cholera and other
gastrointestinal illnesses. And swimming in waters with high levels of fecal coliform is
prohibited, thereby impairing the recreational uses of waterways used for water contact
recreation. Fishing uses are impaired when excess levels of fecal coliform result in the
closure of shellfish beds and other restrictions or prohibitions on fishing. Finally,
pathogens present in poultry processing wastewaters can be infectious to wildlife.
The wastewater from the NFMRR violated fecal coliform monthly effluent limits in
VA0090263 at least 10 times since August, 2001, for a total of at least 307 days of
violation. 52.97 miles of the North Fork, including areas downstream of the NFMRR
discharge, are listed as impaired by fecal coliform on Virginia’s 2004 § 303(d) list of
impaired waters.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (“BOD”) and Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen
Demand (“CBOD”) – Poultry processing wastes contain large amounts of biodegradable
organic matter that, when dumped into receiving waters, removes oxygen from the
waters, thus rendering the dissolved oxygen in the waters insufficient to support fish and
invertebrates. The potential of a pollutant to remove oxygen is measured by its BOD and
its CBOD.
The NFMRR facility has had 17 violations of monthly BOD effluent limits in discharge
permit VA 0090263 since August, 2001 and 4 violations of the CBOD limit since June,
2005, for a total of at least 668 days of violation, with the most recent violation recorded
for April, 2007 (monthly average concentration).
Total Suspended Solids (“TSS”) - Poultry processing wastewater contains suspended
solids composed of soft and hard poultry tissue particles and other biomass. Suspended
solids settle to form bottom deposits on receiving waters. These solids clog fish gills and
reduce oxygen transport. In addition, they increase turbidity and reduce penetration of
light through the water column which limits the growth of rooted aquatic vegetation that
serves as critical habitat for fish, shellfish, and other aquatic organisms. Moreover, the
suspended solids provide a medium for transport for many other pollutants such as
phosphorus, pathogens, metals and pesticides.
The NFMRR facility has had 10 violations of monthly TSS effluent limits in discharge
permit VA 0090263 since August 1, 2001, for a total of at least 323 days of violation.
Arsenic – Arsenic is present in poultry processing wastes due to its presence in manure
and its presence in tissue and meat of poultry that is processed. Arsenic is added to
poultry feed to promote growth, inhibit microbial infections, and increase egg production,
in forms including the commercial product of organic arsenic, Roxarsone. Studies show
that this substance is chemically transformed into inorganic arsenic, which is a known
15

carcinogen, in as little as a week. Moreover, over 95% of the arsenic fed to poultry is
excreted and goes to the poultry litter; this substance enters the environment through
poultry manure that is applied as a fertilizer and leaches to groundwater, or runs off into
surface water during storm events, or is present during some stage of poultry processing.
Additionally, a recent study shows that poultry that are fed Roxarsone retain arsenic in
their tissues; this arsenic can impact human health when it is consumed in prepared
poultry meat. The European Union banned arsenic additives in chicken feed in 1999, yet
they continue to be supplied by Cargill to its growers in the United States
Arsenic is a heavy metal that is a Class A carcinogen. In addition to cancer, other health
effects from chronic low-level exposure to arsenic include paralysis, blindness,
neurological effects, birth defects, and diabetes. Arsenic can be toxic to fish and to
phytoplankton and zooplankton. In addition, it bioaccumulates and biomagnifies in
aquatic food chains. It is also a concern when it is released to waters that serve as a
source of potable water supply. EPA recently revised its drinking water regulations to
lower the maximum concentration in water sources to 10 parts per billion (“ppb”); the
previous standard had been 50 ppb.
Arsenic is listed as a toxic “priority pollutant” by EPA under the CWA, 40 CFR § 401.15
and 40 CFR Part 423, Appendix A, and is also present on the most recent (2005)
CERCLA biennial priority list of hazardous substances. Additional data from VADEQ
indicates the presence of Arsenic in concentrations over 10 times the DEQ screening
level in fish caught in the North Fork and elsewhere in the Shenandoah River system.
Zinc – Poultry processing wastes contain zinc because it is added to poultry feed and
much of it is excreted into manure that is present at the processing facilities. Zinc can be
toxic to fish and to phytoplankton and zooplankton. In addition, it bioaccumulates and
biomagnifies in aquatic food chains. It is also a concern when it is released to waters that
serve as a source of potable water supply. Zinc can result in anemia, damage to the
pancreas, and decreases in the levels of high density lipoprotein cholesterol. In addition,
ingestion can cause stomach cramps, nausea and vomiting.
Zinc is listed as a toxic “priority pollutant” by EPA under the CWA, 40 CFR § 401.15
and 40 CFR Part 423, Appendix A, and is also present on the most recent (2005)
CERCLA biennial priority list of hazardous substances.
Copper - Poultry processing wastes contain copper because it is added to poultry feed
and much of it is excreted into manure that is present at the processing facilities. Copper
can be toxic to fish and to phytoplankton and zooplankton. In addition, it bioaccumulates
and biomagnifies in aquatic food chains. It is also a concern when it is released to waters
that serve as a source of potable water supply. Copper is known to cause chronic liver
effects, including cirrhosis, gastrointestinal effects, and Alzheimer’s disease.
Copper is listed as a toxic “priority pollutant” by EPA under the CWA, 40 CFR § 401.15
and 40 CFR Part 423, Appendix A, and is also present on the most recent (2005)
CERCLA biennial priority list of hazardous substances.
16

Selenium – Poultry processing wastes contain selenium because it is added to poultry
feed and much of it is excreted into manure that is present at poultry processing facilities.
Selenium can be toxic to fish and to phytoplankton and zooplankton. In addition, it
bioaccumulates and biomagnifies in aquatic food chains. It is also a concern when it is
released to waters that serve as a source of potable water supply. Excess selenium can
result in selenosis, and can include cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, and neurological
impacts.
Selenium is listed as a toxic “priority pollutant” by EPA under the CWA, 40 CFR §
401.15 and 40 CFR Part 423, Appendix A, and is also present on the most recent (2005)
CERCLA biennial priority list of hazardous substances.
Pesticides – EPA has noted that pesticides, such as rodenticides, may be present at
poultry processing facilities, and residues from pesticide use on poultry flocks in
confined operations to control ectoparasites are sometimes present at the processing
stage. In addition, pesticides including fungicides, insecticides, and fumigants may be
used at these facilities. Sampling data from EPA indicates the presence of pesticides in
raw poultry wastewater. Transpermithrin and carbaryl are two pesticides that EPA
evaluated for further regulation in poultry processing wastewater. Carbaryl is on the
most recent (2005) CERCLA biennial priority list of hazardous substances. Other
pesticides such as chlorhexidrine diacetate may be used at such operations. Pesticides are
toxic to aquatic ecosystems and have the potential to biomagnify and bioaccumulate in
aquatic food chains.
Antibiotics – Antibiotics such as tetracycline, penicillin, and erythromycin are fed to
poultry routinely primarily to promote growth, improve the feed conversion ratio, and
prevent disease, rather than for therapeutic purposes. EPA has noted that anywhere from
25 to 75 percent of the administered antibiotics are excreted, and that antibiotic
compounds may pose risks to humans and the environment. EPA has found that chronic
toxicity may result from low-level discharges of antibiotics. In addition, the nontherapeutic
use of antibiotics may contribute to antimicrobial resistance in the human
population, possibly contributing to the ineffectiveness of antibiotics for therapeutic
purposes. The practice of feeding antibiotics to animals as growth enhancers has been
phased out in the European Union, and the World Health Organization and the Institute
for Medicine have called for the discontinuation of this practice.
Hormones – Estrogen and Testosterone have been found to be naturally present in
poultry manure. These compounds are strong chemical messengers that help regulate
growth and reproductive functions. Excess estrogen and testosterone can disrupt the
endocrine processes in humans and animals, and is associated with reproductive and
developmental abnormalities in vertebrate and invertebrate animal species, such as
intersex and imposex fish, as well as reduced sperm counts in men.
Oil & Grease – Many animal fats and oils, and lubricating oils and greases, can enter the
wastestream of poultry processing waste. These substances have a very high BOD and
17

are readily biodegradable. Soluble and emulsified oil and grease disrupts the aquatic
ecosystem by inhibiting the transport of oxygen and other gases needed for plant and
animal survival.
The NFMRR facility has had 2 violations of maximum and average monthly O&G
effluent limits in discharge permit VA 0090263, in May, 2006, for a total of at least 62
days of violation.
Toxicity – Effluent from the NFMRR consisting primarily of poultry processing
wastewater failed several Whole Effluent Toxicity Tests (“WETT”) in March, 2007,
violating the toxicity effluent limit (chronic toxicity units) in discharge permit
VA0090263 for a total of 31 days of violation. The WETT limit came into effect in the
permit in January, 2007. A failure of a WETT test indicates that the synergistic nature of
the effluent, or compounds in the effluent not already subject to effluent restrictions, are
toxic to fish and aquatic life. The toxic nature of the wastewater endangers health or the
environment.
Construction Waste and Debris – Cargill has dumped solid waste on land owned by
Cargill at its Timberville poultry processing facility, and in the waters of the North Fork
itself. The dumped solid waste includes but is not limited to construction debris, boards,
trash, large blocks of rock, and other assorted debris. The dumped waste remains on the
banks of, and directly in, the North Fork of the Shenandoah River, violating water quality
standards by impeding navigation, disfiguring the stream bottom, endangering the health
and safety of fishermen, swimmers, boaters, and other recreational users, impairing the
aesthetic, aquatic, and recreational uses of the River, smothering aquatic habitat,
inundating riparian wetlands and floodplain, and altering the hydrology of the North
Fork.
C. Cargill Engages, and Has Engaged, In the “Open Dumping” of Solid
Waste Into The North Fork of the Shenandoah River And Onto Cropland
The citizen suit provision set forth at Section 7002(a)(1)(A) of the SWDA, 42 U.S.C. §
6972(a)(1)(A), allows citizens to commence an action against “any person…who is
alleged to be in violation of any permit, standard, regulation, condition, requirement,
prohibition, or order which has become effective pursuant to this chapter.” Section 4005
(a) of SWDA, prohibits “any solid waste management practice or disposal of solid
waste…which constitutes open dumping of solid waste…” 42 U.S.C §6945(a). Cargill is
engaged in the open dumping of solid wastes and has been so engaged since August 27,
2001.
The term “solid waste” includes “any other discarded material including solid, liquid ,
semisolid, or contained gaseous material resulting from industrial, commercial, …and
agricultural operations, and from community activities.” 42 U.S.C. § 6903 (27).
Additionally, “disposal” is defined at 42 U.S.C. § 6903(3) as “the discharge, deposit,
injection, dumping, spilling, leaking, or placing of any solid waste or hazardous waste
into or on any land or water so that such solid waste or hazardous waste or any
18

constituent thereof may enter the environment or be emitted into the air or discharged
into any waters, including ground waters”. Finally, an “open dump” is defined in 42
U.S.C. § 6903(14) as “any facility or site where solid waste is disposed of which is not a
sanitary landfill which meets the criteria promulgated under section 6944 of this title and
which is not a facility for the disposal of hazardous waste.”
The wastes from Cargill meet the definition of “solid waste” since they include liquid,
solid, and semi-solid material discarded from industrial operations at these poultry
processing facilities. Cargill disposes, and has disposed of, solid and hazardous poultry
processing waste in several ways. First, it discharges, dumps, spills, or leaks this waste
from conveyance lines and pump stations onto land and into the waters of the North Fork,
and has done so since August 27, 2001. Second, it places, and has placed since August
27, 2001, the solid and hazardous wastes into conveyance lines with water so that the
poultry processing waste may enter the aquatic or terrestrial environment, or the ground
water, through the NFMRR, or pursuant to direct discharges, leaks, dumps, or spills onto
the land in the watershed. Third, since there is no permitted sanitary landfill or hazardous
waste facility at Cargill for these wastes, the disposal of the solid wastes into the water
(directly, or through placement in a conveyance to the NFMRR system, or to land and
then leaching through to the groundwater) and onto the land, constitutes “open dumping,”
by definition, in violation of the SWDA.
Additionally, as to the construction debris and other waste in the riparian area of the
Cargill facility, including but not limited to construction debris, boards, trash, large
blocks of rock, and other assorted debris, the dumped waste remains on the banks of, and
directly in, the North Fork of the Shenandoah River, violating water quality standards by
impeding navigation, disfiguring the stream bottom, endangering the health and safety of
fishermen, swimmers, boaters, and other recreational users, impairing the aesthetic,
aquatic, and recreational uses of the River, smothering aquatic habitat, inundating
riparian wetlands and floodplain, and altering the hydrology of the North Fork. This
waste from the Cargill facility meets the definition of “solid waste” since it includes solid
material discarded from Cargill into the North Fork and onto its riparian property.
Cargill intentionally places the solid waste both into the North Fork of the Shenandoah
River, and onto riparian land Cargill owns.
Cargill’s releases from the discharge, dumping, spilling, or placing solid waste into water
and onto land constitute “disposal,” as the term is defined in the SWDA. Moreover, since
there is no permitted sanitary landfill or hazardous waste facility at the Cargill facility,
the disposal of the solid wastes into the water and onto the land constitutes “open
dumping,” by definition, in violation of the SWDA.
19

IV. VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERAL CLEAN WATER ACT
A. Cargill Causes the Addition of Pollutants to the North Fork of the
Shenandoah River
Cargill contributes, and has contributed each day since August 27, 2001, significant
amounts of poultry processing waste to the NFMRR treatment system. Cargill transports
large amounts of highly concentrated raw poultry processing waste to the NFMRR;
Cargill provides no pretreatment to the wastes prior to transporting them each day to the
NFMRR. Much of this poultry waste ends up as inadequately treated waste that is
dumped into the North Fork of the Shenandoah River.
Under the CWA, persons that cause the addition of pollutants to waters of the United
States are liable, even if the persons themselves are not “point sources,” so long as the
ultimate discharge is from a “point source”. Cargill takes, and has taken, several actions
that cause the addition of pollutants to the North Fork through the NFMRR since August
27, 2001. First, Cargill fails, and has failed, to provide any pretreatment to its poultry
processing wastes before transporting them to the NFMRR each day since August 27,
2001. In so doing, the poultry processor inundates, and has inundated, the NFMRR with
“high strength” wastewater that the NFMRR can not adequately treat to limits in the
discharge permit. Second, the poultry processor sends and has sent wastes to the
NFMRR each day that exceed and have exceeded the design capabilities of the NFMRR,
including design concentrations and loads, of the treatment facility, thus overwhelming
and overburdening the facility each day since August 27, 2001. Cargill transports and
has transported chemical disinfectants and other pollutants to the NFMRR that disrupt,
and have disrupted, treatment operations on several occasions since August 27, 2001,
resulting in the dumping of inadequately treated poultry processing waste and raw
sewage and industrial waste into the North Fork.
Furthermore, the poultry processor controls the wastewater that ends up being dumped
into the North Fork by the NFMRR in several ways. First, Cargill each day causes the
discharge of wastes such as phosphorus and nitrogen into the North Fork by sending to
NFMRR wastes that exceed design capacities, concentrations, and loads at NFMRR.
Cargill, by exceeding the design capacities assigned to its wastes, sends waste to the
NFMRR that the NFMRR is not designed to handle, in blatant disregard of the treatment
capabilities of the NFMRR. By deliberately transporting wastes in excess of flow, load,
and concentration design capacities at the NFMRR each day, Cargill assures that the
treatment system is unable to process the wastes that are sent to it, thus resulting in the
dumping of inadequately treated wastes into the North Fork. Next, the NFMRR has
recently (March, 2007) failed several WETT tests because of the toxic nature of the
wastes in the NFMRR effluent stream. The failure of the NFMRR to satisfy toxicity tests
is attributable to chemicals in the poultry processing waste that are sent to the NFMRR
each day since January 1, 2007 (the date the toxicity limit in the permit took effect) by
Cargill that have a synergistic toxic impact. Additionally, Cargill has experienced
numerous poultry processing waste overflow events at its pump stations prior to the
20

wastes reaching the NFMRR. Some of these spill events have lasted several days and
have flowed into the North Fork.
Finally, Cargill has dumped “pollutants” into the North Fork that include construction
debris, boards, trash, large blocks of rock, and other assorted debris. The dumped waste
remains on the banks of, and directly in, the North Fork of the Shenandoah River,
impeding navigation, disfiguring the stream bottom, endangering the health and safety of
fishermen, swimmers, boaters, and other recreational users, impairing the aesthetic,
aquatic, and recreational uses of the River, smothering aquatic habitat, inundating
riparian wetlands and floodplain, and altering the hydrology of the North Fork.
Accordingly, the actions of Cargill cause, and have caused, the addition of pollutants to
the North Fork directly, through raw overflows of sewage and industrial waste and the
dumping of construction waste and debris in the river, and also through a point source
(NFMRR), in violation of the CWA.
B. Cargill is Jointly and Severally Liable for Unlawful Discharges of Poultry
Processing Waste Into The North Fork
Cargill, PPC and SIL are the legal cause of violations of VPDES permit VA0090263 and
damage to the North Fork; the damages they cause are indivisible between the two
entities. Cargill is a major source of influent wastewater loads to the NFMRR; Cargill is
responsible for approximately 23% of the TP loading and 11% of the TN loading that the
NFMRR receives. Together with PPC, Cargill is responsible for approximately 92% of
the influent phosphorus loading and 89% of the influent nitrogen loading.
Moreover, Cargill sends, and has sent, each day since August 27, 2001, poultry
processing wastes to the SIL NFMRR that exceed design concentrations for the NFMRR
facility. Additionally, Cargill sends, and has sent, each day since August 27, 2001, waste
chemicals to the NFMRR that severely disable the biological treatment systems at the
facility and thus allow untreated wastes to flow through the NFMRR and into the North
Fork. In short, Cargill sends poultry processing waste to the NFMRR each day that the
NFMRR simply is not capable of adequately treating before discharge to the North Fork.
It is simply not possible to delineate where the responsibility of the poultry processors
ends and the NFMRR begins. The poultry processors are simply using the NFMRR as a
bargain basement means of disposing of their poultry processing wastewater. The legal
consequence of these actions is that Cargill is jointly and severally liable with PPC and
SIL for the untreated or minimally treated poultry processing wastes that are, or have
been, dumped into the North Fork or deposited on cropland adjacent to the NFMRR
facility since August 27, 2001.
C. Cargill’s Dumping of Construction Waste and Debris In the North Fork
Is An Unlawful Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material
Section 301(a) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a), specifies that the discharge of any
"pollutant” by any person from a “point source” into “navigable waters” is unlawful
21

unless such discharge has been undertaken in compliance with, inter alia, Section 404 of
the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1344. Section 404 of the CWA authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers to “issue permits…for the discharge of dredged or fill material into the
navigable waters….” 33 U.S.C § 1344(a). As such, the discharge of dredged or fill
material into navigable waters without a permit under Section 404 contravenes Section
301(a) of the CWA.
The violations of water quality standards caused by the dumping of construction waste
and other debris in the North Fork by Cargill at the Timberville facility constitute the
discharge of pollutants from a point source into navigable waters of the United States.
Since the pollutants were dumped into the North Fork without the authorization of either
a VPDES permit issued by VADEQ under § 301 of the CWA, or a permit issued by the
Corps of Engineers under § 404, Cargill is responsible and liable for the pollution under
the CWA. The violations of water quality standards caused by the dumped pollutants
constitute an ongoing violation of the CWA since they continue to impede navigation,
disfigure the stream bottom, endanger the health and safety of fishermen, swimmers,
boaters, and other recreational users, impair the aesthetic, aquatic, and recreational uses
of the River, smother aquatic habitat, inundate riparian wetlands and floodplain, and alter
the hydrology of the North Fork.
D. Cargill Engages In The Discharge of Storm Water From Industrial
Activities Without A Discharge Permit
Cargill has failed to obtain a wastewater discharge permit for the discharge of storm
water from industrial activities from its Timberville facility each day that there are
precipitation events since August 27, 2001. This permit is required under the federal
regulation at 40 CFR § 122.26(b)(14)(xi) for industries in, inter alia, the Food and
Kindred Products category (SIC Code 20), such as the Cargill Timberville facility.
V. VIOLATIONS OF VIRGINIA LAW
A. Cargill Violates the Virginia Waste Management Act
The Virginia Waste Management Act (“VWMA”), Va. Code 10.1-1400 et seq., provides
authority for the Virginia Waste Management Board to, inter alia, supervise and control
waste management activities in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Cargill engages in the
handling, treatment, storage, and disposal of solid waste without a Solid Waste
Management Facility (“SWMF”) permit, as required by the VWMA and regulations
promulgated thereto.
Several definitions in the VWMA and the solid waste management regulations must be
parsed to ascertain the involvement of Cargill in solid waste management and disposal
activities at NFMRR.
First, the term “solid waste” is defined at 9 VAC 20-80-140, in relevant part, as “any
discarded material… [and]…[m]aterials… used, reused, or reclaimed, or accumulated,
22

stored or treated before such use, reuse, or reclamation, when they are: 1. [r]egulated as
hazardous wastes under the Virginia Hazardous Waste Management Regulations…; 2.
[u]sed in a manner constituting disposal by being: a. [a]pplied to or placed on the land; or
b. [u]sed to produce products that are applied to or placed on the land or are otherwise
contained in products that are applied to or placed on the land. In the latter case, the
product so containing remains a solid waste; or… accumulated speculatively…”.
The definition of “solid waste” contains several other terms that are, themselves, defined
at 9 VAC 20-80-10:
• "Discarded material" means a material which is: A. [a]bandoned by being: 1.
[d]isposed of…; or …3. [a]ccumulated, stored or treated (but not used, reused, or
reclaimed) before or in lieu of being abandoned by being disposed of, burned or
incinerated…”
• "Storage" means the holding of waste, at the end of which the waste is treated,
disposed, or stored elsewhere.
• "Treatment" means, for the purpose of this chapter, any method, technique or
process, including but not limited to incineration, designed to change the physical,
chemical or biological character or composition of any waste to render it more
stable, safer for transport, or more amenable to use, reuse, reclamation or
recovery.
• “Disposal" means the discharge, deposit, injection, dumping, spilling, leaking or
placing of any solid waste into or on any land or water so that such solid waste or
any constituent of it may enter the environment or be emitted into the air or
discharged into any waters.
A brief examination of the processes of Cargill at the NFMRR reveals that it engages in
the management of “solid waste”. As noted above, Cargill generates, handles, stores,
transports, and disposes of poultry processing wastes. These activities constitute
“storage,” “treatment,” and “disposal” as these terms are defined in 9 VAC 20-80-10.
“Treatment” and “storage” are two components of solid waste management under the
definition of “solid waste” in the applicable Virginia regulations. Another key
component in the “solid waste” definition is that the material be “discarded material”.
To constitute “discarded material,” the regulation at 9 VAC 20-80-10 provides, in
relevant part, that a material must be abandoned by: (1) being disposed of, or (2)
accumulated, treated or stored before, or in lieu of, disposal. The activities of Cargill
indicate that it engages in the management of “discarded material”.
As noted above, Cargill accumulates and stores poultry processing wastes. Cargill
disposes of the poultry processing waste to either the water or the land after
accumulating, storing, and treating the material by transporting the wastes to the NFMRR
23

and by discharging, depositing, dumping, spilling, leaking, or placing the materials on
land or in water in a way that it may enter the environment.
Cargill also disposes of construction waste and debris by dumping it on the banks of the
North Fork and into the River itself, where it smothers aquatic habitat, endangers the
health and safety of boaters, fishermen and swimmers, and impairs recreational, aesthetic
and navigational uses.
In sum, the poultry processing waste and construction waste and debris from Cargill is
“solid waste” since it includes “discarded materials” placed in water or applied to land,
and materials that are accumulated, “stored,” or “treated” before being “disposed”.
Accordingly, by definition, Cargill engages in the management (treatment, storage, and
disposal) of solid wastes.
1. Cargill Operates, and Has Operated, a Solid Waste Treatment, Disposal,
or Storage Facility Without a SWMF Permit
Regulations promulgated under the VWMA at 9 VAC 20-80-480.A. provide that no
person shall construct, operate, or modify a solid waste management facility without a
SWMF permit issued by the Director. The term “solid waste management facility”
("SWMF") is defined at 9 VAC 20-80-10 as “a site used for planned treating, storing, or
disposing of solid waste. A facility may consist of several treatment, storage, or disposal
units.”
Cargill operates a SWMF by engaging in the disposal, treatment, and storage of solid
wastes. Cargill does not have the SWMF permit required to lawfully operate such a
facility in Timberville.
a. Cargill Engages, and Has Engaged, in Disposal of Solid Waste
Without a SWMF Permit
Cargill engages in the disposal of solid waste without a SWMF permit from DEQ. This
violates Va. Code § 10.1-1408.1.A. and 9 VAC 20-80-480 which prohibit the operation
of a facility that engages in the disposal, treatment, and storage of solid waste without a
solid waste facility management permit. Additionally, Cargill disposes of such waste on
their own property through pump station overflows. Va. Code § 10.1-1408.1.I. provides
that no person shall allow waste to be disposed of on his property without a SWMF
permit. In the absence of such a permit, Cargill also violates Va. Code § 10.1-1408.1.A.,
which specifies that it is the duty of all persons to dispose of their solid waste in a legal
manner.
The term “disposal” is defined in Va. Code § 10.1-1400 as “the discharge, deposit,
injection, dumping, spilling, leaking or placing of any solid waste into or on any land or
water so that such solid waste or any constituent thereof may enter the environment or be
emitted into the air or discharged into any waters, including ground waters.” Cargill
disposes of solid poultry processing wastes in several ways. First, it discharges, dumps,
24

spills, or leaks this waste from conveyance lines and pump stations onto land and into the
waters of the North Fork. Second, Cargill places the solid and hazardous wastes into
conveyance lines so that the poultry processing waste may enter the aquatic or terrestrial
environment, or the ground water, through the NFMRR, or pursuant to direct discharges,
leaks, dumps, or spills onto the land in the watershed. In addition, Cargill disposes of
construction waste and debris by dumping such wastes on its land adjacent to the North
Fork, and in the North Fork itself.
b. Cargill Engages, and Has Engaged, in the Storage of Solid Waste
without a SWMF Permit
Cargill collects and stores poultry processing wastes before transporting them to the
NFMRR for ultimate disposal into the North Fork of the Shenandoah River, or through
land disposal. The storage practices are a component of the operation of a solid waste
management facility, and thus violate the regulation at 9 VAC 20-80-480.A. that provides
that no person shall construct, operate, or modify a solid waste management facility
without a SWMF permit issued by the Director.
2. Cargill Engages, and Has Engaged, in the Open Dumping of Solid Waste
On Its Property
Cargill engages, and has engaged, in the open dumping of solid wastes on its property.
The regulation at 9 VAC 20-80-10 defines “open dump” as “a site on which any solid
waste is placed, discharged, deposited, injected, dumped or spilled so as to present a
threat of a release of harmful substances into the environment or present a hazard to
human health.” As indicated above, Cargill engages, and has engaged, in the
management (treatment, storage, and disposal) of “solid waste”.
To be involved in “open dumping” under Virginia law, solid waste must be “placed,
discharged, deposited, injected, dumped or spilled” such that it presents the threat of a
release of harmful substances into the environment or a hazard to human health. The
wastes from Cargill meet the definition of “solid waste” since they include liquid, solid,
and semi-solid material discarded each day from industrial operations at the poultry
processing facility. Cargill each day places, discharges, deposits, dumps, spills, or
disposes of solid and hazardous poultry processing waste in several ways. First, Cargill
places the solid and hazardous wastes into conveyance lines with other water each day so
that the poultry processing waste may enter the aquatic or terrestrial environment, or the
ground water, through the NFMRR, or pursuant to direct discharges, leaks, dumps, or
spills onto the land in the watershed. Second, Cargill discharges, dumps, spills, or leaks
this waste from conveyance lines and pump stations onto land and into the waters of the
North Fork. Since there is no permitted sanitary landfill or hazardous waste facility at
Cargill for these wastes, the disposal of the solid wastes into the water (directly, or
through placement in a conveyance to the NFMRR system, or to land and then leaching
through to the groundwater) and onto the land, constitutes “open dumping,” by definition,
in violation of the VWMA.
25

In addition, Cargill has placed, deposited, dumped, or spilled a vast quantity of
construction wastes and debris onto its riparian lands, and directly into the North Fork of
the Shenandoah River. As such, it is clear that Cargill places, discharges, dumps, and
spills solid wastes into the environment each day that constitute “open dumping” under
Virginia law.
Another predicate to a determination of “open dumping” is that the solid waste “presents
a threat of a release of harmful substances into the environment” or a hazard to human
health. By placing poultry processing waste each day into a conveyance to the NFMRR,
Cargill presents a threat of release of harmful substances to the environment, in several
ways. First, there is always the daily threat of more overflows of raw sewage, and
partially-treated or untreated industrial waste, from the Cargill pump station, and other
pump stations at the NFMRR, since at least 18 such events have occurred since August,
2001. Second, by sending poultry processing waste to the NFMRR each day since
August 27, 2001 that: (1) has not received any pretreatment; (2) exceeds design
concentrations; (3) contains substances such as sulfuric acid and quaternary ammonia that
severely disrupt treatment processes at the NFMRR; and (4) is being “treated” by an
entity (SIL) with a long history of failing to satisfy discharge effluent limits in permit
VA0090263, the poultry processing wastes sent by Cargill certainly present a daily threat
of harmful substances entering the environment. Additionally, the construction waste
and debris deposited by Cargill on the banks of the North Fork and in the river itself
provides an immediate threat to aquatic life and aesthetic and recreational uses, as well as
to the health and safety of fishermen, swimmers, and boaters.
Downstream of the NFMRR discharge outfall, the North Fork substrate is a sprawling
algal forest that is overloaded with nutrients, in particular phosphorus, and is not suitable
habitat for fish. This contrasts markedly with the relatively pristine conditions upstream
of the NFMRR discharge outfall. Pollutants present in the poultry processing waste
conveyed to the NFMRR by Cargill each day include nitrogen, phosphorous, fecal
coliform, ammonia, and other substances that can and do cause substantial damage to the
environment. Excess nitrogen and phosphorous result in excess algae and eutrophication
and rob fish and other aquatic life of dissolved oxygen needed for survival. These effects
are profound in extremely sensitive environments, such as the Chesapeake Bay estuary
downstream of the SIL discharge, where over 90% of the Bay fails to meet water quality
standards because of these substances. Additionally, fecal coliform impairs 52.97 miles
of the North Fork, including areas downstream of the SIL discharge. And ammonia is
suspected as a prime cause of the massive fish kills that the North Fork, and other parts of
the Shenandoah River, has been experiencing in recent years. In sum it is indisputable
that the placement of poultry processing wastes into the conveyance system that
transports the wastes to the NFMRR, poses a threat of the release of a harmful substance
that impacts the environment. Additionally, the construction waste and debris that
Cargill has dumped on the banks of the North Fork and in the river itself violates water
quality standards and presents continuing and immediate threats to aquatic life and
aesthetic, navigational and recreational uses in addition to endangering the health and
safety of fishermen, boaters and swimmers.
26

In sum, the serious danger present from the handling, treatment, storage, and disposal of
solid wastes by Cargill has occurred, and may occur at any time in the future, further
causing or contributing to water quality impairment in the North Fork of the Shenandoah
River, including downstream of the NFMRR outfall, as well as the Potomac River, and
the Chesapeake Bay, in addition to possibly more fish kills, in the watershed, and
downstream. This constitutes open dumping; Cargill maintains an “open dump,” as that
term is defined in 9 VAC 20-80-10.
The VWMA, and regulations promulgated thereto, include several additional prohibitions
on open dumping that are applicable to Cargill. First, Va. Code § 10.1-1408.1.G.
provides that no person shall dispose of solid waste in open dumps. Second, Va. Code §
10.1-1408.1.A. specifies that it is the duty of all persons to dispose of their solid waste in
a legal manner. Third, Va. Code § 10.1-1408.1.H. specifies that no person shall own,
operate or allow an open dump to be operated on his property. Fourth, Va. Code § 10.1-
1408.1.I. provides that no person shall allow waste to be disposed of on his property
without a SWMF permit. These provisions are clearly contravened by Cargill’s dumping
of construction waste and debris on its riparian lands adjacent to the North Fork. Finally,
9 VAC 20-80-480.A. provides that no person shall construct, operate, or modify a solid
waste management facility without a SWMF permit issued by the Director. Under each
of the foregoing provisions, Cargill has violated the VWMA, and applicable regulations,
by operating a SWMF that is involved in open dumping of solid waste without a SWMF
permit.
In short, the open dumping of wastes without a SWMF permit constitutes an ongoing
violation of Virginia solid waste laws and regulations. Virginia’s solid waste program
has been fully approved by the U.S. EPA. Thus, these violations are also enforceable
under the citizen suit provisions of 7002(a)(1)(A) of the SWDA, 42 U.S.C. §
6972(a)(1)(A), that allow citizens to commence an action against “any person…who is
alleged to be in violation of any permit, standard, regulation, condition, requirement,
prohibition, or order which has become effective pursuant to this chapter.”.
B. Cargill Violates the Virginia State Water Control Law and Regulations
Promulgated Thereto
The discharges from the NFMRR facility violate numerous provisions of Virginia’s State
Water Control Law (“SWCL”), Va. Code §§ 62.1-44.2 et seq., and regulations
promulgated thereto. The SWCL sets forth, inter alia, a comprehensive scheme for the
regulation of discharges of pollutants into “state waters,” which is defined to include
surface and ground waters in the Commonwealth. Cargill discharges, and has
discharged, directly and indirectly, each day since August 27, 2001, numerous pollutants
into the North Fork of the Shenandoah, and has committed other violations of the SWCL,
as set forth below.
27

1. Cargill Unlawfully Discharges Industrial Waste and Other Waste
Into State Waters
Va. Code § 62.1-44.5.A.1. provides that, except as authorized by a permit, it is unlawful
to “[d]ischarge into state waters sewage, industrial wastes, other wastes, or any noxious
or deleterious substances”. As detailed above in this notice letter, Cargill discharges
pollutants in violation of 9 VAC 25-32-30.B.1, which provides that: “[e]xcept in
compliance with a… permit issued by the board, it shall be unlawful for any person to: a.
[d]ischarge into, or adjacent to, state waters sewage, industrial wastes, other wastes, or
any noxious or deleterious substances; or b. [o]therwise alter the physical, chemical or
biological properties of such state waters and make them detrimental to the public health,
or to animal or aquatic life, or to the use of such waters for domestic or industrial
consumption, or for recreation, or for other uses.”
2. Cargill Unlawfully Causes or Contributes To Alterations of the
Physical, Chemical, and Biological Properties of State Waters,
Making Them Detrimental to The Public Health or To Animal or
Aquatic Life
Cargill causes or contributes to impairment of water quality and deleterious impacts to
fish and aquatic life in downstream waters such as the North Fork, the Shenandoah River,
the Potomac River, and the Chesapeake Bay, in numerous ways, as detailed above. Va.
Code § 62.1-44.5.A.3 specifies that, except as authorized by a permit, it is unlawful to
“[o]therwise alter the physical, chemical or biological properties of state waters and make
them detrimental to the public health, or to animal or aquatic life, or to the uses of such
waters for domestic or industrial consumption, or for recreation, or for other uses.”
3. Cargill Fails, and Has Failed, To Provide Adequate Facilities For
Sufficient Treatment of Industrial Wastes That Are Sent To
NFMRR
Cargill fails to provide adequate facilities to provide sufficient treatment to industrial
wastes that it generates, stores, and transports to the NFMRR. This is indicated by the
large phosphorous and nitrogen loads (and loads of other pollutants) that are transported
from Cargill to the SIL NFMRR and then into the water and onto the land. Cargill
provides no pretreatment of their poultry processing wastes before it transports the wastes
to the NFMRR.
Essentially, the phosphorous load from Pilgrim’s Pride and Cargill, as well as other
pollutants, is merely passing through the NFMRR with only minimal (10-25%) removal
of phosphorous taking place at the NFMRR. The failure of Cargill to provide adequate
treatment facilities for industrial waste violates Va. Code § 62.1-44.16.(1) which states
that: “[a]ny owner who erects, constructs, opens, reopens, expands or employs new
processes in or operates any establishment from which there is a potential or actual
discharge of industrial wastes or other wastes to state waters shall first provide facilities
28

approved by the Board for the treatment or control of such industrial wastes or other
wastes.”
C. Cargill Violates The Inland Game and Fisheries Code
The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (“VDGIF”) is responsible for the
management of inland fisheries, wildlife, and recreational boating for the Commonwealth
of Virginia. The Inland Game and Fisheries Code, Va. Code § 29.1-533, specifies that:
“[i]t shall be unlawful to… knowingly cast any noxious substance or matter into any
watercourse of the Commonwealth where fish or fish spawn may be destroyed…”.
Cargill, each day since August 27, 2001, directly or indirectly, knowingly places noxious
substances into the North Fork that cause or contribute to violations of water quality
standards and impairment of water quality by transporting poultry processing wastes to
the NFMRR that exceed, and have exceeded, the design loads and concentrations of the
NFMRR facility. Additionally, by adding chemical disinfectants such as sulfuric acid
and quaternary ammonia to the poultry processing wastes transported to the NFMRR,
Cargill has severely disrupted treatment systems at the NFMRR, resulting in the dumping
of inadequately treated poultry processing wastes into the North Fork. The addition of
these substances has also caused physical damage to treatment facilities at SIL.
Levels of phosphorus immediately upstream of the NFMRR discharge in the vicinity of
Timberville have been documented at 0.01 mg/l as recently as September 28, 2006, while
levels of phosphorus downstream of the NFMRR discharge were recorded on the same
day at 1.4 mg/l. This means that levels of phosphorus in the North Fork are 140 times
higher downstream of the discharge than they are upstream of the discharge. Nitrogen is
25% higher in the stream downstream of the outfall when compared with upstream levels.
These extremely high levels of phosphorus and nitrogen are the result of poultry
processing wastes sent to NFMRR for disposal by Cargill, and then dumped into the
North Fork after minimal or no treatment.
Over 52.97 miles of the North Fork, including large stretches downstream of the SIL
outfall, are listed on the 2004 Virginia “dirty waters” list for fecal coliform impairment.
Fecal coliform bacteria are present in the intestines of warm-blooded animals and are an
indicator that the aquatic community has been contaminated by fecal matter.
Additionally, there is compelling scientific evidence that the entire Shenandoah River
system is an ecosystem in trouble. Numerous fish kills in the Shenandoah River system
have occurred recently. In the spring of 2007, fish collection and monitoring efforts by
the Shenandoah River Fish Kill Task Force indicate that at least 15% of largemouth and
smallmouth bass collected appear to be developing lesions or are otherwise developing
health issues. There have also recently been several minor fish kills of redbreast sunfish,
smallmouth bass, and suckers, and redbreast sunfish are not showing signs of recovery.
It appears from these observations that there are emerging or re-emerging fish health
problems from previous years that are continuing and re-occurring. Notably, in early
December, 2006, fish kills numbering in the thousands occurred, including northern
29

hogsuckers in the main stem of the Shenandoah, along with dead sunfish and
smallmouth bass on the North Fork and South Forks of the river. This is the first late fall
fish kill that has been noticed in the Shenandoah River system in recent times. There
have been fish kills on the North Fork of the Shenandoah River in recent years, including
in areas downstream of the SIL NFMRR. Each spring, commencing in 2004, there has
been lethality of about 80% of the adult smallmouth bass and redbreast sunfish in the
North Fork, and many fish have been found with lesions.
State officials are using continuous monitoring and are doing ongoing grab sample
monitoring to look for the presence of ammonia. Data show that ammonia in the
Shenandoah is significantly higher than in other Virginia rivers. Ammonia results in
chronic and acute toxicity to fish and has long been suspected to be a contributing factor
to health issues in fish. Additional data from VADEQ indicates the presence of heavy
metals such as Arsenic in concentrations over 10 times the DEQ screening level in fish
caught in the North Fork and elsewhere in the Shenandoah River system. Arsenic is
present in poultry litter and poultry processing waste.
Also, in 2006 the group American Rivers named the Shenandoah River system as one of
America’s most endangered rivers because of threats to the ecosystem on many fronts,
including from extensive development in the Shenandoah River valley.
Finally, Cargill deliberately dumped construction waste and debris on the banks of the
North Fork and into the River itself. By knowingly placing wastes into the River that
smother aquatic habitat, impair recreational and navigational uses, and endanger the
safety and health of boaters, fishermen and swimmers, Cargill has violated Virginia water
quality standards and placed noxious matter or substance into the North Fork where fish
may be destroyed.
Cargill knows or reasonably should have known that its actions each day since August
27, 2001 result in the addition of pollutants to the North Fork that adversely impact fish
habitat and water quality and therefore contribute to fish health and mortality.
VI. CONCLUSION
If the conditions causing the above violations are not corrected within 60 days such that
these violations will not occur again, the Riverkeepers and the Waterkeeper plans to file
suit seeking civil penalties, injunctive relief, and litigation costs as provided by the CWA,
SWDA, and Virginia law, on behalf of the Riverkeepers and the Waterkeeper and our
members.
The Riverkeepers and the Waterkeeper reserve the right to include in their Complaint
allegations of additional violations that are not included in this notice letter. Moreover,
the letter does not preclude the Riverkeepers or the Waterkeeper from bringing suit for
violations under any other federal or state law or regulation, or to sue for violations other
than those described above.
30

The notice of intent to sue letter complies with the requirements of § 505(b) of the CWA,
33 U.S.C. § 1365(b), § 7002(a)(1) of the SWDA, 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1), and
accompanying regulations.
The Riverkeepers and the Waterkeeper request that they be informed and included in any
settlement negotiations that may arise out of this 60-Day Notice or subsequent litigation
initiated by the Riverkeepers and the Waterkeeper.
If you would like to discuss this matter further or provide us with any additional relevant
information, please contact us by C.O.B. June 18, 2007.
Sincerely,
__________________
William J. Gerlach, Jr.
Attorney for Shenandoah Riverkeeper, Potomac Riverkeeper,
and Waterkeeper Alliance
50 S. Buckhout St., Suite 302
Irvington, NY 10533
(914)-674-0622, ext. 20
Jeff Kelble
SHENANDOAH RIVERKEEPER
P.O. Box 405
Boyce, VA 22620-0405
(540) 837-1479
Ed Merrifield
POTOMAC RIVERKEEPER, INC.
1717 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Suite 600
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 222-0707
WATERKEEPER ALLIANCE
50 S. Buckhout St., Suite 302
Irvington, NY 10533
(914)-674-0622
31

APPENDIX A
I. VIOLATIONS OF DISCHARGE PERMIT VA0090263 BY SIL
A. Phosphorous (TP) Violations
Parameter Length of
Violation
Total
Phosphorus
Total
Phosphorous
Total
Phosphorous
Total
Phosphorous
4/1/07 –
12/31/07
4/1/06 –
12/31/06
1/1/05-
12/31/05
11/1/04-
12/31/04
B. Nitrogen (TN) Violations
Parameter Length of
Violation
Total
Nitrogen
Total
Nitrogen
8/1/06-
12/31/06
7/1/05-
11/30/05
Limit in
Permit
3,200
kg/yr.
3,200
kg/yr.
3,200
kg/yr.
3,200
kg/yr.
Limit in
Permit
17,000
kg/yr.
17,000
kg/yr.
32
Type of
Permit
Limit
Annual
Mass
Load
Annual
Mass
Load
Annual
Mass
Load
Annual
Mass
Load
Type of
Permit
Limit
Annual
Mass Load
Annual
Mass Load
Amount
Discharged
5,039.8 kg 215
18,353 kg 215
29,091 kg 303
10,625 kg 31
Amount
Discharged
26,018 kg 153
24,781 kg 122
Estimated
Days in
Violation 8
Estimated
Days in
Violation 9
8 For purposes of the chart, all annual load limit violations are calculated from the 1 st day of the month
following the month in which SIL first exceeds its annual load effluent limits for the calendar year.
Additionally, the calculation takes into account months where SIL has reported that no discharge into the
North Fork took place. Waterkeeper reserves the right to add additional days of violation as additional
information warrants.
9 See n. 1.

C. Ammonia as N (NH3) Violations
Parameter Length of
Violation
Ammonia 3/1/07-
3/31/07
Ammonia 3/1/07-
3/31/07
Ammonia 2/1/07-
2/28/07
Ammonia 4/1/06-
4/30/06
Ammonia 3/1/06-
3/31/06
Ammonia 1/1/05-
1/31/05
Ammonia 12/1/04-
12/31/04
Ammonia 12/1/04-
12/31/04
Ammonia 11/1/04-
11/30/04
Ammonia 11/1/04-
11/30/04
Ammonia 10/1/04-
10/31/04
Ammonia 10/1/04-
10/31/04
Ammonia 9/1/04-
9/30/04
Limit in Permit Type of Permit
Limit
5.5 mg/l Monthly
Average
33
(Concentration)
8.2 mg/l Monthly
Maximum
(Concentration)
5.5 mg/l Monthly
Average
(Concentration)
5.5 mg/l Monthly
Average
(Concentration)
5.5 mg/l Monthly
Average
(Concentration)
5.5 mg/l Monthly
Average
(Concentration)
1.3 mg/l Monthly
Average
(Concentration)
2.0 mg/l Monthly
Maximum
(Concentration)
1.3 mg/l Monthly
Average
(Concentration)
2.0 mg/l Monthly
Maximum
(Concentration)
1.2 mg/l Monthly
Average
(Concentration)
1.2 mg/l Monthly
Maximum
(Concentration)
1.2 mg/l Monthly
Average
(Concentration)
Amount
Discharged
11.8 mg/l 31
18.9 mg/l 31
7.2 mg/l 30
7.1 mg/l 30
6.8 mg/l 31
5.9 mg/l 31
7.8 mg/l 31
8.4 mg/l 31
8.5 mg/l 30
9.3 mg/l 30
9.3 mg/l 31
9.3 mg/l 31
7.4 mg/l 30
Ammonia 9/1/04- 1.2 mg/l Monthly 7.4 mg/l 30
Estimated
Days in
Violation

9/30/04 Maximum
(Concentration)
Ammonia 12/1/03- 1.2 mg/l Monthly 1.3 mg/l 31
12/31/03
Average
(Concentration)
Ammonia 12/1/03- 1.2 mg/l Monthly 1.5 mg/l 31
12/31/03
Maximum
(Concentration)
Ammonia 11/1/03- 1.2 mg/l Monthly 3.8 mg/l 30
11/30/03
Average
(Concentration)
Ammonia 11/1/03- 1.2 mg/l Monthly 3.8 mg/l 30
11/30/03
Maximum
(Concentration)
Ammonia 3/1/03- 1.2 mg/l Monthly 4.7 mg/l 31
3/31/03
Average
(Concentration)
Ammonia 3/1/03- 1.2 mg/l Monthly 4.7 mg/l 31
3/31/03
Maximum
(Concentration)
D. Fecal Coliform Violations
Parameter Length of
Violation
Fecal
Coliform
Fecal
Coliform
Fecal
Coliform
Fecal
Coliform
Fecal
Coliform
Fecal
Coliform
Fecal
Coliform
7/1/04-
7/31/04
10/1/03-
10/31/03
5/1/03-
5/31/03
4/1/03-
4/30/03
9/1/02-
9/30/02
9/1/02-
9/30/02
8/1/02-
8/31/02
Limit in
Permit
400
colonies/100
ml
400
colonies/100
ml
400
colonies/100
ml
400
colonies/100
ml
200
colonies/100
ml
400
colonies/100
ml
200
colonies/100
Type of Permit
Limit
Monthly
Maximum
(Concentration)
Monthly
Maximum
(Concentration)
Monthly
Maximum
(Concentration)
Monthly
Average
(Concentration)
Monthly
Average
(Concentration)
Monthly
Maximum
(Concentration)
Monthly
Average
34
Amount
Discharged
1600
colonies/100
ml
1600
colonies/100
ml
1600
colonies/100
ml
900
colonies/100
ml
642
colonies/100
ml
>1600
colonies/100
ml
535
colonies/100
Estimated
Days in
Violation
31
31
31
30
30
30
31

Fecal
Coliform
Fecal
Coliform
Fecal
Coliform
Fecal
Coliform
Fecal
Coliform
8/1/02-
8/31/02
10/1/01-
10/31/01
8/1/01-
8/31/01
7/1/01-
7/31/01
7/1/01-
7/31/01
ml (Concentration) ml
400
colonies/100
ml
400
colonies/100
ml
200
colonies/100
ml
400
colonies/100
ml
200
colonies/100
ml
Monthly
Maximum
(Concentration)
Monthly
Maximum
(Concentration)
Monthly
Average
(Concentration)
Monthly
Maximum
(Concentration)
Monthly
Average
(Concentration)
35
1600
colonies/100
ml
500
colonies/100
ml
300
colonies/100
ml
1600
colonies/100
ml
1600
colonies/100
ml
E. Carbonaceous Biological Oxygen Demand (CBOD5) Violations
Parameter Length of
Violation
CBOD5
CBOD5
CBOD5
CBOD5
4/1/07-
4/30/07
2/1/07-
2/28/07
2/1/07-
2/28/07
6/1/05-
6/30/05
Limit in
Permit
Type of Permit
Limit
22 mg/l Monthly
Average
(Concentration)
22 mg/l Maximum
Monthly
Average
(Concentration)
160 Maximum
kg/day
Monthly Load
12 mg/l Maximum
Weekly
Average
(Concentration)
F. Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5) Violations
Amount
Discharged
31
31
31
31
31
23.6 mg/l 30
32.7 mg/l 28
201.9 kg/day 28
13 mg/l 30
Estimated
Days in
Violation
Parameter Length of Limit in Type of Permit Amount
Estimated Days
Violation Permit Limit
Discharged in Violation
BOD5 1/1/04- 120.45 Maximum 146.3 kg/day 31
1/31/04 kg/day Monthly Load
BOD5 1/1/04- 11 mg/l Average 15.5 mg/l 31
1/31/04
Monthly
(Concentration)
BOD5 1/1/04- 16 mg/l Maximum 45.2 mg/l 31

1/31/04 Monthly
(Concentration)
BOD5 4/1/03- 120.45 Maximum 188 kg/day 30
4/30/03 kg/day Monthly Load
BOD5 4/1/03- 80.3 Average 119.7 kg/day 30
4/30/03 kg/day Monthly Load
BOD5 4/1/03- 11 mg/l Average 17 mg/l 30
4/30/03
Monthly
(Concentration)
BOD5 4/1/03- 16 mg/l Maximum 27 mg/l 30
4/30/03
Monthly
(Concentration)
BOD5 1/1/03- 11 mg/l Average 14 mg/l 31
1/31/03
Monthly
(Concentration)
BOD5 1/1/03- 16 mg/l Maximum 23 mg/l 31
1/31/03
Monthly
(Concentration)
BOD5 12/1/02- 11 mg/l Average 12 mg/l 31
12/31/02
Monthly
(Concentration)
BOD5 5/1/02- 11 mg/l Average 21 mg/l 31
5/31/02
Monthly
(Concentration)
BOD5 5/1/02- 16 mg/l Maximum 29 mg/l 31
5/31/02
Monthly
(Concentration)
BOD5 5/1/02- 80.3 Average 104.7 kg/day 31
5/31/02 kg/day Monthly Load
BOD5 5/1/02- 120.45 Maximum 153 kg/day 31
5/31/02 kg/day Monthly Load
BOD5 1/1/02- 80.3 Average 89.6 kg/day 31
1/31/02 kg/day Monthly Load
BOD5 1/1/02- 11 mg/l Average 15 mg/l 31
1/31/02
Monthly
(Concentration)
BOD5 8/1/01-
Maximum Exceeds Permit 31
8/31/01
Monthly
Internal
(Concentration)
Limitation
BOD5 7/1/01-
Maximum Exceeds Permit 31
7/31/01
Monthly
Internal
(Concentration)
Limitation
36

G. Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Violations
Parameter Length of
Violation
TSS 7/1/03-
7/31/03
TSS 4/1/03-
4/30/03
TSS 4/1/03-
4/30/03
TSS 4/1/03-
4/30/03
TSS 3/1/03-
3/31/03
TSS 3/1/03-
3/31/03
TSS 2/1/03-
2/28/03
TSS 12/1/02-
12/31/02
TSS 11/01/02-
11/30/02
TSS 8/1/01-
8/31/01
TSS 7/1/01-
7/31/01
Limit in
Permit
Type of Permit
Limit
45 mg/l Maximum
Monthly
(Concentration)
30 mg/l Average
Monthly
(Concentration)
45 mg/l Maximum
Monthly
(Concentration)
218.36 Average
kg/day
Monthly Load
30 mg/l Average
Monthly
(Concentration)
218.36 Average
kg/day
Monthly Load
30 mg/l Average
Monthly
(Concentration)
30 mg/l Average
Monthly
(Concentration)
30 mg/l Average
Monthly
(Concentration)
Maximum
Monthly
Internal
(Concentration)
Maximum
Monthly
Internal
(Concentration)
37
Amount
Discharged
48 mg/l 31
42 mg/l 30
47 mg/l 30
295.7 kg/day 30
33 mg/l 31
249.8 kg/day 31
31 mg/l 28
36 mg/l 31
31 mg/l 30
Exceeds Permit
Limitation
Exceeds Permit
Limitation
Estimated
Days in
Violation
31
31

H. Oil and Grease (O&G) Violations
Parameter Length of
Violation
Oil and
Grease
Oil and
Grease
5/1/06-
5/31/06
5/1/06-
5/31/06
I. pH Violations
Parameter Length of
Violation
pH
(standard
units)
9/1/01-
9/30/01
Limit in
Permit
Type of
Permit Limit
67 kg/day Average
Monthly
(Load)
120 kg/day Maximum
Monthly
(Load)
Limit in
Permit
6.5
standard
units
J. Whole Effluent Toxicity (TUc) Violations
Parameter Length of
Violation
Whole
Effluent
Toxicity
3/1/07 –
3/31/07
Limit in
Permit
Type of Permit
Limit
Minimum
Monthly
(Concentration)
38
Type of
Permit Limit
2.2 TU-C Chronic
Toxic Units
Amount
Discharged
76 kg/day 31
530 kg/day 31
Amount
Discharged
6.1 standard
units
Amount
Discharged
K. Chlorine (Cl2) Total Contact Violations (Internal Limit) 10
Parameter Length of
Violation
Cl2, Total
Contact
Cl2, Total
Contact
4/1/07-
4/30/07
4/1/07-
4/30/07
Limit in
Permit
Type of Permit
Limit
1.0 mg/l Minimum
Monthly
(Concentration)
0.6 mg/l Instantaneous
Minimum
3.4 TU-C 31
Amount
Discharged
0.1 mg/l 30
0.1 mg/l 30
Estimated
Days in
Violation
Estimated
Days in
Violation
30
Estimated
Days in
Violation
Estimated
Days in
Violation
10 The Cl2 limit contained in Condition B.2. of Part I (Special Conditions) is not an effluent limit, but rather
is an internal limit on the minimum concentration of TRC in the wastewater over a 30 day period that
emanates from the chlorine contact tank, for disinfection purposes. After chlorination, the wastewater must
then either be dechlorinated prior to discharge into the North Fork, or maintain a level of 2.0 mg/l TRC or
greater for land application.

Cl2, Total
Contact
Cl2, Total
Contact
Cl2, Total
Contact
Cl2, Total
Contact
Cl2, Total
Contact
Cl2, Total
Contact
Cl2, Total
Contact
Cl2, Total
Contact
Cl2, Total
Contact
Cl2, Total
Contact
Cl2, Total
Contact
Cl2, Total
Contact
5/1/06-
5/31/06
10/1/05-
10/31/05
8/1/05-
8/31/05
7/1/05-
7/31/05
6/1/05-
6/30/05
5/1/05-
5/31/05
4/1/05-
4/30/05
3/1/05-
3/31/05
2/1/05-
2/28/05
5/1/04-
5/31/04
4/1/04-
4/30/04
9/1/02-
9/30/02
(Concentration)
1.0 mg/l Minimum
Monthly
(Concentration)
1.0 mg/l Minimum
Monthly
(Concentration)
1.0 mg/l Minimum
Monthly
(Concentration)
1.0 mg/l Minimum
Monthly
(Concentration)
1.0 mg/l Minimum
Monthly
(Concentration)
1.0 mg/l Minimum
Monthly
(Concentration)
1.0 mg/l Minimum
Monthly
(Concentration)
1.0 mg/l Minimum
Monthly
(Concentration)
1.0 mg/l Minimum
Monthly
(Concentration)
1.0 mg/l Minimum
Monthly
(Concentration)
1.0 mg/l Minimum
Monthly
(Concentration)
1.0 mg/l Minimum
Monthly
(Concentration)
39
0.7 mg/l 31
0.9 mg/l 31
0.8 mg/l 31
0.7 mg/l 31
0.7 mg/l 30
0.9 mg/l 31
0.6 mg/l 30
0.9 mg/l 31
0.8 mg/l 28
0.7 mg/l 31
0.8 mg/l 30
0.8 mg/l 30
L. Phosphorous Pentoxide (P2 O5) Violations (Land Application)
Parameter Length of
Violation
P2 O5 2004 Irrigation
Field C1
Location Limit in
Permit
67
lbs./acre
Type of
Permit Limit
Nutrient
Management
Plan Crop
Amount
Land
Applied
76.5
lbs./acre
Estimated
Days in
Violation
366

P2 O5 2004 Irrigation
Field D1
58
lbs./acre
40
Uptake Limit
Nutrient
Management
Plan Crop
Uptake Limit
59.7
lbs./acre
M. Plant Available Nitrogen (PAN) Violations (Land Application)
Para Length of Location Limit in
meter Violation
Permit
PAN 2004 Irrigation 185
Field E2 lbs./acre
PAN 2004 Irrigation
Field E3
PAN 2004 Irrigation
Field L1-
B
185
lbs./acre
185
lbs./acre
Type of Permit
Limit
Nutrient
Management Plan
Crop Uptake
Limit
Nutrient
Management Plan
Crop Uptake
Limit
Nutrient
Management Plan
Crop Uptake
Limit
366
Amount Land Estimated Days
Applied in Violation
193.3 lbs./acre 366
192.9 lbs./acre 366
194.9 lbs./acre 366
N. Additional Violations of 2/27/07 Rockingham County Circuit Court
Temporary Injunction
Requirement Compliance
Date
Install New
Pumps at
Timberville
Pump
Station
Install New
Pumps at
Timberville
Pump
Station
Violation
Period
3/6/07 3/7/07 –
3/31/07
3/6/07 4/1/07 –
4/30/07
Estimated
Days in
Violation
24
30

II. DISCHARGES OF RAW SEWAGE AND UNTREATED OR PARTIALLY-
TREATED INDUSTRIAL WASTES CONTRARY TO THE TERMS OF PERMIT
VA0090263
Date of
Discharge
6/27/06 City of
Timberville
Location Duration Gallons Receiving
Water
Pump Station
6/9/06 Cargill Pump
Station
8/6/05 City of
Timberville
Pump Station
8/6/05 Cargill Pump
Station
6/7/05 Cargill Pump
Station
9/28/04 City of
Timberville
Pump Station
9/8/04 City of
Timberville
Pump Station
5/18/04 City of
Timberville
Pump Station
12/10/03 City of
Timberville
Pump Station
11/19/03 City of
Timberville
Pump Station
10/22/03 Cargill Pump
Station
9/18/03 City of
Timberville
Pump Station
4 hours Unknown N. Fork
Shenandoah
35
minutes
41
River
50,000 N. Fork
Shenandoah
River
Watershed
Unknown Unknown N. Fork
Shenandoah
River
Unknown 50,000 N. Fork
Shenandoah
River
2.5 hours 7,800 N. Fork
Shenandoah
River
5 hours 60,000 N. Fork
Shenandoah
3 hours 36,000 to
54,000
River
N. Fork
Shenandoah
River
2 hours 24,000 N. Fork
Shenandoah
Unknown 150 to 200
gallons/minute
40
minutes
40
minutes
River
N. Fork
Shenandoah
River
2,250 N. Fork
Shenandoah
River
150,000 N. Fork
Shenandoah
River
Watershed
6 hours 36,000 N. Fork
Shenandoah
River
Estimated
Days in
Violation
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

7/3/03 City of
Timberville
Pump Station
2/22/03 City of
Timberville
Pump Station
1/24/03 Irrigation and
River Pump
House
9/26/02 City of
Timberville
8/10/02 –
8/12/02
Pump Station
Irrigation
Field G
6/1/02 Cargill Pump
Station
8/12/01 City of
Timberville
Pump Station
8/11/01 City of
Timberville
Pump Station
40
minutes
500 N. Fork
Shenandoah
River
42
Watershed
7.5 hours 22,275 N. Fork
Shenandoah
River
1 hour 5,000 N. Fork
Shenandoah
River
Watershed
2 hours 2,400 N. Fork
Shenandoah
River
46 hours 1,200,000 N. Fork
Shenandoah
River
10
minutes
Watershed
< 8,390 N. Fork
Shenandoah
River
Watershed
6 hours 27,000 N. Fork
Shenandoah
River
Watershed
0.5 hours Unknown N. Fork
Shenandoah
River
Watershed
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1

cc: Hon. Robert McDonnell
Commonwealth of Virginia
Office of the Attorney General
900 East Main Street
Richmond, VA 23219
Hon. David K. Paylor
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
629 E. Main St.
P.O. Box 10009
Richmond, VA 23240-0009
Hon. Amy S. Owens
Regional Director
Valley Regional Office
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
4411 Early Road
P.O. Box 3000
Harrisonburg, VA. 22801
Hon. Alberto R. Gonzalez
Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Hon. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Mr. Donald S. Welsh, Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3
1650 Arch Street (3PM52)
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
Mr. Jeffrey L. Lape, Director
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Chesapeake Bay Program Office
410 Severn Avenue - Suite 109
Annapolis City Marina
Annapolis, MD 21403
Hon. J. Carlton Courter, III, Director
Commonwealth of Virginia
Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
4010 West Broad Street
Richmond, VA 23230
43

Hon. Col. Peter W. Mueller
Commander
Baltimore District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
City Crescent Building
10 South Howard Street
P.O. Box 1715
Baltimore, MD 21201
44