ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

June

22, 1978

IN THE

MATTER

OF:

AMENDMENTS TO THE AGRICULTURE

RELATED POLLUTION REGULATIONS

)

R76-15

OF THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION

CONTROL BOARD

)

PROPOSED OPINION

AND

ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Dr. Satchell):

This regulatory proceeding was initiated before the Board

by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

(Agency)

by

filing a petition on July 9,

1976 for amendments to the

Chapter

5:

Agriculture Related Pollution Regulations

(Chapter

5).

This proposal was numbered R76-15 and published in Environmental

Register #130, July

30,

1976.

Public hearings were held on

this matter on August 23, 1977 in Mt. Vernon, Illinois and

August 25, 1977 in Moline,

Illinois.

Economic impact hearings

were held on February 7, 1978 in Galesburg,

Illinois and

February

8,

1978 in Jacksonville, Illinois.

The purpo~eof these

amendments

is

largely

to

comply

with

Federal requirements.

These amendments will make the Board’s

Chapter

5 consistent with the revised

(as of March 18,

1978)

USEPA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES)

program

on

animal

feeding

operations.

The

second

reason

for

the amendments is to set a fixed date for compliance with

part one of Chapter

5 for all feedlots not subject to NPDES

authority.

The current dates, established in March,

1975, were

set to be effective for new facilities when Illinois received

NPDES

authority

from

USEPA

and

for

existing

facilities

thirty

months after receipt of NPDES authority.

This authority was

believed imminent at the time

(R.

12).

However, Illinois did

not

receive

the

authority

as

expected

and

the

compliance

dates

were consequently pushed forward.

Thus in this proceeding the

Agency has sought to establish

a date certain for compliance.

It should be noted at this point Illinois received NPDES

authority in October 1977 and notice was filed with the

Secretary of State on October

24, 1977.

Hearings concerning livestock waste were held in 1972 and

1973;

however, these were stayed pending further agricultural

input and developing federal regulations.

On July 5,

1973 the

federal regulations were finalized.

The Board adopted regulations

on August 29, 1974.

These were amended on September 5,

1974

and again on March 26,

1975.

This final amendment set the cur-

rent compliance dates.

The Agency believes there has been adequate notice to

those facilities not needing NPDES permits to obtain compliance

aO-695

---

—2—

with

the regulations

(R.

12,

13) and that thirty months from

October of 1977 is an unwarranted amount of time to achieve

compliance

(R.

13).

The Agency proposes a December 31, 1978

compliance date

(Aug.

22,

1977 amendment).

This wouldallow

a

complete construction season for facilities not already in

compliance to comply.

The Agency further submits that con-

sidering the lengthy proceedings in this cause there

is no

element of surprise to livestock producers

(R.

13).

The Agency

estimated that 300 to 500 facilities would need to make major

modifications to meet Rule 203 and that a “goodly number” of the

40,000

feedlots in Illinois would need to make minor modifica-

tions to meet the requirements of the regulations

(R.

16, 46).

Dr. Donald W. Lybecker, the author ci

the economic impact

study, made the following observation concerning compliance dates.

“The point is that if a farmer is going to have

to make a capital investment in animal waste pollution

abatement facilities, in general the investment is

better made sooner than later.

Givex~the range of

interest rates during the last five years and the

increase in the cost of labor and materials for the

construction of the pollution control systems,

a

return

of~fromnine to 13 percent above the cost of

capital woul~be realized.

Exceptions

to this generalization must, how-

ever,

be noted.

Those producers who are short of

capital and find themselves with relatively large

debt loads may not be able

to finance the necessary

capital improvements or

if

so, they may be required

to pay a premium for the required additional

funds.

Table 3.13 shows the variation of returns for hogs,

feeder cattle and dairy cattle for the period 1966—75.

During these ten years,

only hog producers have been

able to cover all of their feed and nonfeed costs.

Both the dairy and feeder cattle operators show

losses on average.

Projected nonfeed costs for future

production show increases of from 38 to

50 percent,

indicating additional income pressure for these

livestock operators.”

(IIEQ Doc.

No.

77/23, pp.

37,41)

This analysis was brought into question at the economic impact

hearing because it compares interest rates with price indices.

This would cause the “return from nine to

13 percent” to

disappear.

A representative of the Illinois Livestock Association,

John Killam, observed at the February

7,

1978 hearing that the

variables affecting the industry are so great that it is dif-

ficult to put numbers on the economic impact

(R.

109—113).

30—606

---

It was r~

I at the hearing that the two methods of

compliance c1~o~~

~

economic analysis, the vegetative filter

ard the holdi

pond,

are perhaps the most expensive methods of

c~uaeiiancear~ that by use of some simpler methods costs might

be decreased

(F.

94-96).

One such method might be shifting a

feedlot from cue side on

a hill to another to avoid direct

runoff into

a s~ream. Assuming some farmers have some such

cptions availab~ethe costs would be lower than estimated.

It

should be noted that data in this area are not readily available.

Vuch of the a

romic impact analysis was done with reliance on an

unpublished Soi

Conservation Service

(SCS)

document

(Reference

*30 of IIEQ Loc

No.

77/23).

This document reflects estimates

of numbers of ~eedlot operations

in Illinois that would be

believed to be in violation of specified effluent guidelines

(Rj.

101-103)

These estimates were received through a survey

of people workirg with SCS and extension services

(R.

102),

The Board

bserves that feedlot operators have had sub—

stantial notic

of these regulations because of the on—going

regulatory process since 1972.

These operators even without

Chapter

5 wou

d have to be concerned with compliance with Chapter

3:

Water Poll ~teon Regulations and Section 12 of the Environ~-

mental Protection Act (Act),

Ch.

111 1/2 Ill,

Rev.

Stat.

§1012

~1977)

The e onomic impact of these proposed regulations

considered in ~thislzght become negligible.

The fact that these

egulations

er

ate already existing Federal Regulations raises

‘re question:

is’there any new economic impact as a result of

action by the

~ate of Illinois?

The Boatd

ill enact an earlier compliance date for Rule

401(a) of Chapa~r5.

However,

due to the time delay since the

Agency~sprop~ü the Board will extend the date beyond its

proposal to Jots 30,

1979.

The Agency has indicated that those

operations in~ ned to come into compliance will have already

done so

(R

l~’

13);

however, this will provide an additional

six months

nOt

~e

to those who might be awaiting official action

on the regu1~ion.

Other than the compliance dates all the proposed changes

in the Chapter

5 Regulations are in response to amendments to

the Federal NPDES program on Concentrated Animal Feeding

Operations pu~irthed

in the Federal Register on March

18,

1976

(R.

41,

51).

~de changes include six new definitions wnich

are animal feeding operation, animal unit, man—made, man—made

ditch

navigable waters and silvicultural point source.

An

animal feeding operation is defined as

a facility where

animals are confined for

45 days or more per year and the

entire lot is void of vegetation during the normal growing

~eason.

This excePts pasture operations with proper management

(R.

51).

The definition of an animal feeding operation is

substituted ~

the term livestock feedlot,

This means that

30-607

---

—4—

minor changes

hula 104(c)

and to the definitions for

feedlot runof::

-

:ciok management facility

and

livestock

waste

The defin:

:2’

~

silviculture point source reflects the

latest USEPA rev’:ll~nto clarify that the discharge must be

specifica:Lly

re~:. ~o

s~lvicultural

activities

(R.

52)

There

are no silvicull’~.

point

sources

in

Illinois

(R.

79).

The definitInt rf animal unit is quite similar

to that

promu.gated by 1hll~e

To make the list more nearly complete the

Agency

proposed

-ed.

multiplier

numbers

for

young

dairy

stock,

swine

weighing mJ~ ~

pounds,

turkeys,

laying

hens

or

broilers,

and

duci~s

(R.

~

~u~ing

the

course

of

the

hearing

the

term

~hrood

cows’~ w~r ~~ded

to

the

slaughter

and

feeder

cattle

category

and

‘llr::~

~r

goats~

was

added

to

the

sheep

category.

These

changes

we::t-

eisa

made to assure

ease

of

understanding

in

noraDuting

a~n’

units.

The defin:

-:

~f

man—made

and

man-r:ade

ditch

were

included

to :nake it clear

llr

a

vegetative

filter

would

be

considered

a

treatment

dev:LCL

~-~nd

not

a

man—made

ditch.

The navi’~ahll~~~:ters

definition

is

that

of

40

CFR

125.1(p).

Rule

104(r’

een

modified to

simply

state

that

all

persons

must

c:~

-

:Lth

the Environmental Protection Act and

all

Board regUl~

This

is

simply

a

restatement

of

the

law.

Rules

202 ~ll ~03 deal with NPDES permits.

The amendments

break

down

ren~.

2

ots

in

greater

detail

than

the

existing

form.

As

previously

n:.

:

tue

modifications

in

the

requirements

are

made

in

accorhe~

:::th

the

revised USEPA orogram on Concentrated

Animal Feeding 1aenullons.

Rule 202 (a)

requires an NPDES

permit

for operatlcns

;

:~-7

tore

than 1,000 animal units.

The single

exception

to

~llo

Li

the

operation

discharges

only

in

the

event

of

a

25~v~~

~4-hour

storm

event.

Rule

202(b)

requires

an

NPDES

permit

~oerations

with

300

to

1,000

animal

units

1± either

of n:~o

-

Utions

are

met:

(1)

pollutants

are

dis—

~

arged

direcot’

-

-

nwigable

waters

through

a

man—made

device,

or

~2)

pollu:::

-

~-

a

discharged

directly

into

a

stream

or

other

body

of

~

-,

~t~:ch

comes

into

contact

with

the

confined

animaL

b

Rule

203

p:c•.

-

ice for case—by--case determination for NPDES

permits other ‘h~

v:ee coming under Rule 202.

After consideration

of

tne

factors

ce~

c~th

in

the

regulation

the

Agency

may

designate

a

facili::v

as

r~r

~:ng

an NPDES permit.

Prior

to requiring a

nermit the Agen:~~

:.ost-

make

an

onsite

inspection

and

notify

the

owner

or

opera’:

~: wthting.

No

permit

may

be

rec~uired

if

the

animal

feet:

.;

m:eration

discharges

only

in

the

event

of

a

25-year,

24-~hctr

‘om

event,

Under

Rule

203

t’PDES

permits

can

be

required

crib

:~s:ther of the following conditions

is met:

(1)

there

is

t

i. :~~nergethrough a man-made device,

or

(2)

a

stream

or

oth~r

waL.

::-

comes

into

contact with the confined

ani:nals.

30-608

---

A

new

paragraph

hi

b~auded

.0

~.uis

2u7.

tu~e

2U7ycj

concerns

land

trust

c1ct~uos,

~

once

again s_m~ly s-ates

the

law of Illinois,

In

the

economic

ana1ys~s

Dr.

Lybecker

considered

most

of

the

changes

proposed

other

than

the

compliance

date

as

having

no

economic

impact.

The

one

exception

in

the

analysll

was

the

300—1,000

animal

unit

operation.

ii

it

is assumed these operations

are

not

covered

under

current

regulations

then

:tbout-.

6

iOO

livestock

operations

would be affected

~IIEQ Doc,

77/23

p.

2).

For

128

farms

with

surface runoff problems

the

investment

costs

for

pollution

abatement would

be

i~C’it

~l.

6

million,

an r

an.

additional

net

operating

cost

of

can

~l~2

,000

would

be

incurred

annually,

i~.

This

of

course

in

tnsed

on

cbs

assumptio~

however~

these

operations

could

poss~b1y

ocne

under

the

current

Ruts

203

and

would

come

under

Federal

regulltlon

if

not

covered

by

the

State.

Consequently,

as

stated

earlier

there

is

a

qucation

if

there

is

any

economic

impact.

Ma~’nof

tne

problems

discussed

with

the

economic

analysis

of the compliance date arise

again

now:

the great variability

in

the

industr7,

the avaiiabilnt~~

of

data,

the

choice

of compliance

methods,

arid the requirements

of

the

Environmental Protection Act

duO-. other Board regulat~cns.

Based on

The iniorm~tionpresented the Board will cc.

-

the

changes requested by

the Agency in Rules 103,

104, 2o~,

23,

207

and 303 of Chaptef

5:

Agriculture Related Pollution

~egniat:tons.

Rule 401 will be modified as cons

tent

with this opi~ncn.

ORDER

It is the order

of

the Pollution Control Board tha: cbs

following modifications shall be made to Chapter

5:

Aqrllh:ure

Related Pollution ReguJat~ons:

In Rule

103 the definition of Livestock Feedict is

:oe&ed,

Rule 103 will

CO;~n.

the

following ~iewor modi:ruL

definitions:

Animal

Feedin9~jeration~

A

lot

or

facility

~other

~

an

aquatic

animai

production tac1~rty)where

the

following conditions are met:

(i)

Animals

have been,

are,

or will be

stab:Led.

or

confined

and

fed

or

maintained

for

a

total

of

4~

days

or

more

in

any

12-month period, and

(ii)

Crops,

vegetation,

forage

growth

or

pOSt~

harvest residues that are grown in place

ace

oo

sustained

in

the

normal

growing

season

o~rer an~

portion

of

the

lot

or

facility.

Two

or

more

animal

feeding

operations

under

co:rn’o~

~ninsr-

ship

are

deemed

to

he

a

single

animal

feeding c’~

‘

if

they

are

adjacent

to

each

other

or

if

they

ut

common area or

system

for the disposal of wastes

30~609

---

~eaen.t

nor

~ny

animal

e~ by

addng

tie

following

‘~,

r~vers

a~~d

llreams

,ihich

si

by

interstate

t~avelers

for

3

aa

Or

OLflC~

pui5~o~es;

cc

rivers

and

~treams

f~ru

~

-in

If ill

are

taken

and

sold

I L

Br~

ph

-

-

C

V(

C

Sw3r

Hor~e”

I

crY

~

tir

f-

La

Duci

tT

lo~

‘-

anurral

f~

other

wa~

ni

I

C

-‘

,ic

3t~c

-

~

‘-I

~

~ry

f’~c

05

~

-

(j

Ti

~

C

Mar

rt~~

:L~

a

to

di

ax

Na

itch

p t~

and

feeder

cattle

multi-

i-~

1.4

a1’i:~

3

by

6

ES

p

mdc n:ltiplred by 0.4

o

~o

pound~

nultxplusd

by 0.03

~

au~ itu~tiplrh

by

0.1

b

r

~

nn~rL

ry

0.01

(if

~‘r~n

~us

o~

~w

watering)

~ lJ~l.

c

by

0,03

(if

the

~4d

nancre

hndli~ig

system)

i

sy

~.

a

~

R

rl~

~q

from any

)

n~

ty

~

ci~n~itatuon

or

-

ig

or

:lcwing

onto

an

~

‘cu

feeding

opera—

a

~r_~

ung

and

ac—

‘1

I

-cr ~

‘eT,oL1c~ted feed

m-

c.

~

~rix

cup

ivaters

from

pcraciou

pcr~taJ

o~

falling

on

~ ~cr,

and

other

:

3

y

tan

cu’

c.

the

purpose

cu

et~ cu~-~ure

~i~i

excavated

a

~ia

-~

~j

ll.estock

S

cucera

rth~

h

ILOt

to

be

~3

p~ne

disposal

e~vucr

~

.~

crcu

~i-e

form

)taCS

wa

e~.

-

a~

.ysten.

i

L~Ei~

(iL

t~t.

cru

St~tet~

ci

-~

,r~to~

ll

~ie

ul-ILCU

btates;

~

na~ip~c~l~xate

s

of

the

~)

---

(6)

-i~. ~

~ka:

o1vnrs,

cud streams

which

are

‘arc ¶ized

for

uncustrial

purposes

by

~ndustrths

~n

inre:-state commerce,

Silvicultural

Point

Source:

Any

discernible,

confined

and

discrete

conveyance

related

to

rock

crushing,

gravel

washing,

log

sorting

or

lo~ storage

facilities

which

are

operated

in

~:onnoccion

with

Ivucultural

activities

and

from

which

~.ol1ntants

are

ficaharged

into

navigable

waters.

Rule

104(a)

104 LIVESTOCk

MANAGEMENT_FAP::L1TY_AND

LIVESTOCK

WASTE—

HANDLING

FACILITY_OPERr~?1ONS

(a)

Genera:

Criteria

(1)

Besides the

Re-Iulations

contained within this

Chapter,

every person

shall

also comply with

the

provisions of the Act and Board

Regulations

(2)

The

cwner

or

op-crator

of

any

iuvestock

manage—

ment

facility

or

livestock

waste—handling

facility

shall

comply

with

the

FWPCA,

NPDES

filing requireoents, and the

Feedlot

category

of

point

source

effluent

guidelines.

(~3~ These

Regulations

shall

apply

to

stockyards

and.

sirnhar

operations

where

animals

are

held

:nist.lv,

as

welL

as

to

conventional

livestock

‘nerstions.

(4~

The

transportation

of

l:vestock

wastes

shall

be

planned

and

conducted

so

as

not

to

cause,

tnre-~ten,

or

allow

arp,

violation

of

the

Act

and

-‘~pIicab1e

regulations.

Rule

104 (c~

(c)

P:tec:~c:n

of

Livestock

Manacement

Facilities

and

~

(1~

Loistong

livestock mancrrement

facilities and

1:

re5tock

waste—handling

facilities

shall have

adecuate

diversion

dikes,

walls,

or curbs that

‘iil

prevent

excessive

outside

surface waters

from

flowing

through

the animal feeding

operation

and

will

direct

runoff

to

an~ap—

nrc-priate

disposal,

holding,

or

storage

area,

The

diversions are required on all aforementiorill

structures

unless

there

is

negligible

outside

-:urf ace

water which

can

flow through the

3Q—6~

---

—8-’

that will prey

runoff waters

feeding

ope

appropriate

area.

The

ci

aforementio

-~

negligible

F

low

throuch

tri~utary

to

livestock

w~st

pond

must

be

equac

to

o

Fceding opea

a

part

of

th

(ir.cludune

ro

facil

t~

,

frorr

earthe~

conCrete

or’’

justh

-

ab ~

storage

vol’

St

rage

vol’

v:ocrtic

of

the

Agency

may

In

no

case

ha

contaxrmer

L

-

24-lour

~torm

by

h

rew

s

U.S

Invicorm

L

fa-

In ties

shall

have

cres, walls, or curbs

or

x

e

outside

surface

-ii

S

—

through

the animal

-

i

rect

runoff

to an

~ng

or storage

-

cc

q-uired

on

all

n’ess there

is

rr

cc water which can

or the runoff

is

-

o’

disposal

area

or a

aculity.

A holding

ring

a

volume

‘-

a

of

the

animal

I

~ry

trubutary

area

not

Ti

‘C

dug

operation

trbutary

to

the

i

e

y

~2

unches for runoff

r

r~cnes for runoff from

-

~

he operator has

~

an coating

that

ci

lesser

IF

inadequate

torsaten

to

cause a

t

~-p~icableregulations,

u-ceotive measures.

e

volume

of

the

~s than the 25—year,

Idellnes as required

crace

standards

of

the

rctlon Agency for the

roe

a

ag(rv.

Rule 202:

202

PERMITS

REQtIRh

‘

P

Li

“

I

An

NPDES permit

s

~l be

~q

rh

ho

an animal feeding

operation w. ic’

J

-

is

~-

a

ll-

“

r

ia set forth

in

(a)

or

(b) be ow:

r

‘ow

~j

-,

hat no animal

feeding operation hail

c~~

-

pen-at

if it dis-

charges

only

in

the

Cve~t

‘f

a

2b-1ea~

24-hour

storm

event.

(a)

More

than

Inc

nombors

or acrmols specified in any

of

the

following

cate~’

ies

are

confined:

facility or the runoff

is tributary to an

acceotatcr

(Lusnosal area or a livestock waste-~

handling fcc

I

ty.

If inadequate diversions

cause or threa~ento causa a violation of the

Act or appli

c-tie regulat-~ons,the Agency may

requ4-re corn ~tve

measures,

(2)

New livestock car

~eircntiac~htiesand live--

stock waste rand cig

adequate div r~

r,

4-

C

‘-‘-p

---

—9—

Number of

Animals

1,000

700

500

10,000

55,000

100,000

30,000

5,000

1,000

____

Kind of Animals

Brood cows and slaughter and

£ceder

cattle

Milking dairy cows

Horses

Swine

weighing

over

55

pounds

Sheep,

lambs

or

goats

Turkeys

Laying hens or broilers

(if the

facility has continuous overflow

watering)

Laying hens or broilers

(if the

facility has

a liquid manure handling

systen)

Ducks

Animal

units

(b)

More than the following numbers

and

types

of

animals

are confined and either condition

(1)

or

(2)

below

is

met:

Number

of

Animals

300

200

750

150

3,000

16,500

30,000

9,000

____

Kind_of_Animals

Brood cows and slaughter or feeder

cattle

Milking dairy cows

Swine weighing over

55 pounds

Horses

Sheep, lambs or goats

Turkeys

Laying

hens

or

broilers

(if

the

facility

has continuous overflow watering)

Laying hens or broilers

(if the facility

has

a liquid manure handling system)

---

—10—

1,500

Ducks

300

Animal

units

(1)

Pollutants are discharged into

navigable

waters through a

man—made

ditch, flushing

system or other similar man—made device; or

(2)

Pollutants

are discharged directly

into

navigable waters which originate outside of

and pass over,

across, through or otherwise

come into direct contact with the animals

confined in the operation.

None

or

the requirements listed in Rule 201,

202,

or 203 preclude the voluntary

filing

of

an

NPDES

application

by

the owner or operator of an animal

feeding operation.

Rule

203:

203

CASE-BY-CASE

DESIGNATION

REQUIRING NPDES PERMITS

(a)

Notwithstanding

any

other

provision

of

this

Part,

the-

Agency

may

require

any

animal

feeding

operation

not

falling within Rule 202 to obtain a permit.

In

making such designation,

the Agency shall consider

the following factors:

(1)

The size of the animal feeding operation and

the amount of wastes reaching navigable waters;

(2)

The location

of the animal

fceding operation

relative

to

navigable

waters;

(3)

The means of conveyance of animal wastes and

process

wastewaters

into navigable waters;

(4)

The slope, vegetation,

rainfall, and other

factors relative to the likelihood or frequency

of discharge of animal wastes and process

wastewaters into navigable waters; and

(5)

Other such Factors bearing on the significance

of the pollution problem sought to be regulated.

The Agency,

however, may not

require

a permit under

Rule 203(a)

for any animal feeding operation

with

less than the number of animal units

(300)

set

forth in Rule 202(b)

above,

unless

it meets either

of the following conditions:

Ci)

Pollutants are discharged into navigable waters

through a man-made ditch,

flushing system or

other similar man—made device; or

30-6~

---

(ii)

Pollutants

are

discharged

-directly

into

navigable

waters

which

originate

outside

of

and pass over~-

c-cross,

through

or

otherwise

come into

direct

contact with the animals

confined in

the. operation.

(b)

In

no case may a

pe~:-c-ritapplication

he required from

an animal feeding

oteration.

designated pursuant to

this Rule until

there

has

been

an

onsite inspection

of the operation

and

a

delamination that the

operation should

and

could

be

regulated under the

permit

program.

ha.

tdditian,

no

application may

be

required

from

an

owner

-

-r

operator

of

an

animal

feeding

operation

designanni.

aursuant

to

this

Rule

unless the

owner

or

aperata:

ts

notified

in

writing

of the requirement

fo

apply

for

a

permit.

Cc)

Upon receipt

of

the

Aoencyh

notification that

an

NPDES permit

is

required

narinant to Rule 203(b)

of this Chapter,

the

operator

shall

make application

to the Agency

within

60

days.

The

Agency may issue

an NPDES permit

wita

a

comPliance

schedule detailing

interim steps

to

he

taken

along with

a final date,

-riot

to

exceed

14

months

from the date

the

permit

is

issued,

by which compliance with the Act and all

applicable

regulaticns

shall

be

achieved.

(d)

No animal feeding

-operation

may be required to have

a permit if it discharges only in the event of a

25—year, 24—hour

storm

event.

A new Rule 287(c)

207 APPLICATIONS

-

FILING

AND

FINAL

ACTION

BY

AGENCY

Cc)

~

Recuired

For

Land

Trusts.

An

applicant

filing for an NPDES

permit

shall satisfy the re--

quirements of

Chap-:~r 148,

Section

72,

of

the

Illinois

Revised

Statutes

(1975)

before

the

Agency

grants

the

applicant

its

permlt.

Rule 303:

303

SILVICULTURAL

ACTIVITIES

NPDES permits are required for

discharges

from silvi-

cultural point sources.

401 COMPLIANCE DATES

Compliance with the limitations of Part

I

of this

Chapter

shall be

achieved

by the following dates:

(a)

With

respect

to

existing

facilities

not

required

---

—12-

st.,

‘L..~

N

~‘

rernits,

by

~

1)79.

(b;

-i..L~ ep..

~~z.otheren-

-e

aninew

~ctiit4cs

at

-he effectiw

--

e of this

anndnei t

I, chrsstcn

T.

)joCfett

-

-

-

Control

Board,

nereoj

ces4

2

1

.

adopted

on

the

~j

-

ote of

.1fr~t

S

At.

;

IC’S

4.

t

,tr

30

b