RECEIVED

CLFR~<’~OFFICE

POLL~~R~

JUN

0 7

2001

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS

L BOARD

STATE

ILLINOIS

THE MATTER OF:

)

Pollution

Control Board

)

AMENDMENTS TO

LIVESTOCK

)

ROI-28

WASTE REGULATIONS

)

(35

IL Adm. Code 506)

)

COMMENTS OF TERRY FELDMANN.

P.E

am a licensed professional engineer (Agricultural Engineer) in the state of Illinois.

own Feldmann

& Associates, an Agricultural Engineering and Environmental

Consulting firm in

East Peoria,

IL.

I am a graduate of the University of Illinois College

of Engineering with a degree in Agricultural Engineering.

have been a full time

consultant to Livestock and Poultry producers full time since 1992.

I was raised

on a

small farm in Madison county Illinois where we raised

hogs and beef cattle.

This

upbringing enables

me to understand the practical

side (the real world) of livestock

production and associated tasks such as construction, maintenance, etc.

I testified at the 1997 part 506 rule making

hearing

in Champaign and actively worked

with livestock producers in the design of their facilities to follow that rule.

I consult with

more livestock facilities about their designs than any other consulting engineer in

Illinois.

I am an active member of the American SocietyofAgricultural Engineers and

serve on both the Swine and Dairy Housing committees.

Overall the new rules submitted by the Department are a major step toward

protecting

the environment and the livestock industry.

I am sorry that

I could not make it to one of

the hearings for this rule making and

I commend the participants and the board for their

effort.

do not own a livestock business and will not be directly impacted by increased

construction costs.

However,

do rely on the livestock industry

in Illinois for practically

all of my income

and therefore directly value its viability.

I am concerned that certain

proposed

provisions are without merit and will only increase costs unnecessarily.

As a

result,

livestock producers will decide to build in other states or countries rather than

Illinois.

have the following

major concerns about the proposed

rule:

There is

no provision for determining the seasonal high water table in the site

investigation nor methods.

Perhaps “seasonalhigh water table”should

be defined

as the expected equilibrium elevation of water in an open pit or bore hole This

requires professional judgement which should be left up to the person responsible

for certifying the site investigation.

Since

it is practically impossible to do a soils

investigation at the time of the seasonal high water table,

I suggest reference to the

USDA definition found

in the Soil Survey.

Seasonal

High Water Table

is the

highest level of a saturated zone

in the soil

in most years.

The survey estimates are

based on the evidence of a saturated

zone, namely grayish

color and mottles

in the

soil.

Section 506.210 requires the use of secondary containment.

The Act says that a

lagoon

shall include a secondary berm, filter strip, grass waterway, or terrace, or

combination of those if an engineer retained by the registrant with the concurrence

of the Department, determines that such feature(s) is necessary to ensure against a

release to non-owned

land or waters of this state.

I contend that not all sites and

lagoon designs

should be required to have one of these features. The Act certainly

does not require the use of certain

combinations of features as specified. The rule

should allow for use of an engineer’s judgement. If an engineer determines that

particular site and lagoon does not need one of these features, such feature(s)

should

not be required.

Section 506.303 proposes an additional 6” rainfall covering the storage structure

and other drainage areas

beyond the 2’freeboard.

contend that the rainfall event

on the storage structure itself is already accounted for within the 2’freeboard.

However, a volume for the 25 year-24 hour storm event (which may be more or less

than 6”) should

be added for drainage areas other than that of the structures

surface.

This is consistent with the guidance documents such as MWPS-18 and

ASAE

EP 393.3.

I propose that the board adopt the ASAE EP393.3 standard as it

includes all volumes including bedding, wash down volumes, etc. with the 2’

freeboard provision as explained

above.

Section 506.307

(b)

requires that deep bedded systems with an earthen base

achieve a conductivity equal

or less than I x 10-7

centimeters/sec.

Since these

housing systems

use bedding to absorb liquids and are generally roofed and

protected from precipitation, this permeability requirement is not necessary.

Solid

handlinglstorage system not exposed to precipitation should

be exempt from these

requirements unless a site investigation indicates

a vulnerable site due to a karst

area or shallow ground water or aquifer material.

Section 506.310 outlines additional requirements if aquifer material

is located within

5’of the proposed

bottom. The proposed rule requires the installation of perimeter

drainage tubing.

Perimeter drainage tubing

is to be used as outlined

in MWPS-36

where the water table

could rise above the floor (MWPS-36, Fig.

27).

In my

experience with soils investigations half of the sites with aquifer material do not

have a seasonal

high water table within close proximity to the floor.

Many of these

sites are sand hills or other well, drained soils with relatively deep

(10’to 20’)water

tables.

If the seasonal high water table is not expected to be higher than the tank

floor elevation, drainage tubing

is useless.

However,

the location or elevation of the

water table, if it is present within 5’of the planned bottom, should

be determined

and design provisions for adequate protection should

be provided by an engineer

with concurrence of the Department.

Inspection/monitoring of perimeter drain tubing

is a good

idea, but quarterly

sampling

not. Most water tables are seasonally high causing flow from the

drainage tubing for brief periods in the spring.

Furthermore,

it gives no opportunity

for determining the quality of up gradient water which may flow below a manure

storage structure.

Producers can however, monitor the flow from the tubing during

the season that

it flows.

They can simply collect a sample

in a jar and inspect it

visually for turbidity and odor.

The proposed rule calls for drainage tubing to be installed

1’below the bottom of

the footings.

This is excessive and costly.

In most cases installing the tube so that

the bottom of the tube is at the same elevation as the bottom of the footing is

sufficient.

This always makes

the top of the tube below the top of the manure

storage floor to prevent the water table from being higher than the floor as shown in

MWPS-36. Tubes should however, either drain to a free outlet (daylight) or provide

sufficient slope when connected to other subsurface conduits.

Section

13 (b) of the Livestock Management Facilities Act specifically requires

designs to follow ASAE 393.3 or future updates.

In the proposed rules section

506.310(b) specifies minimum thicknesses of floors and walls.

As listed in EP393.3

section 6.1.1.3.1, if no wheel loads are expected, 4” floors are adequate.

The 5”

thickness is required for tanks with wheel loads.

Requiring a minimum 8”thick walls

should

not be specified as EP393.3 specifies the loading

and that the design

based

on ACI-318 (Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete).

These

minimums may actually hinder the design

process with engineers.

For example, a

producer

reads this minimum and thinks that is what is needed.

If a wall

is taller or

soil

load is greater, the wall

may need to be thicker.

Now the engineer has a harder

job to convince the producer that a thicker wall

is needed because he believes that

8” is adequate.

On the other hand,

a shorter waIl (<4’)that is only a few feet tall

need not be 8”thick and provides negligible additional protection.

Designs should take into account site specific data including the soil type, depth to

ground water,

etc.

Design professionals should use their judgement with

concurrence of the Department to determine what is necessary to prevent seepage

of stored liquid. For example,

in the case of a concrete structure, a designer might

choose a more limiting Z-check of <115 kips/in rather than <145 kips/in to control

flexure crack widths.

Site specific data (rather than assuming 3000 psf) for soil

bearing strength should be required for footing design

in areas of shallow aquifer

material or karst areas.

This is very important to prevent seepage.

In fact, even more important than

the design itself might be a good Quality

Assurance/Quality Control (QNQC)

plan.

I suggest that these plans be developed

as part of the overall design and submitted to the Department for their review for

facilities located

in a karst area.

The degree of detail should

be left to the design

engineer with concurrence of the Department.

Regular inspection and maintenance

should also be considered.

With regard to testimony of Dan Heacock of IEPA,

I have the following concerns:

The number of soil borings in

a karst

area should

be determined

by the engineer or

geologist based

on judgement and existing geologic information.

A specific number

of boring should

not be specified. Although, if they deem

it necessary to protect the

environment, the Department may require additional borings, sampling, or tests.

Minimum depth of at least one boring is important to specify as stated

in the

proposed

rule.

Requiring a storage facility for perimeter drain tiles is not feasible.

Storage facilities

constructed according to the proposed

rules are meant to be liquid tight and

therefore are not likely to contaminate perimeter drain tiles.

However, if it

determined

that a facility does have seepage to a tile, the liquid must be captured,

properly treated and/or disposed as required by the Environmental Protection Act.

important provision of the proposed

rule is section 506.106 which provides for

design alternative, modifications, and waivers.

This allows for engineering judgement

to be used.

More explanation of these comments and details can be found

in a paper that Mark

Armstrong,

P.E. and

I wrote for the proceeding of the 1999 Livestock Waste

Management Conference held at the

University of Illinois.

Thank you for considering these comments.

Sincerely,

Terry Feldmann,

P.E.

Feldmann

& Associates

1191

Carolyn Court

East Peoria,

IL 61611

309-699-6962 ph