ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    November 14, 1974
    IN THE MATTER OF
    CHAPTER
    5: AGRICULTURE-RELATED POLLUTION
    )
    R72-9
    SECTION
    1: LIVESTOCK WASTE REGULATIONS
    OPINION OF THE BOARD
    (by Dr. Odell)
    This Opinion supports the Livestock Waste Regulations
    adopted by the Board on August 29,
    1974, and amended September
    5,
    1974.
    INITIAL PROPOSAL
    On June 23,
    1972,
    in Newsletter #49,
    the Pollution
    Control Board
    (Board) announced that public hearings would be
    held on a Proposed Animal Waste Regulation designed to avoid
    odor nuisances and to reduce pollution of “waters
    of the State.”
    Approximately 4,000 persons attended and actively participated
    in six public hearings on this Proposal during the winter of
    1972—73.
    Many farm witnesses questioned the basic need for the
    Proposed Regulation and pointed out specific deficiencies
    in
    the Proposal.
    Also,
    the final guidelines and regulations
    governing animal feedlots had not been promulgated by the U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency under the Federal Water Pollution
    Control Act Amendments
    (FWPCA)
    of 1972.
    Because of these
    problems, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency)
    requested that the Board hold these hearings in abeyance for six
    to twelve months to permit redrafting the Proposed Regulations
    to
    resolve the problems that had been presented during the hearings.
    The Board granted the Agency’s Motion, agreed not to hold further
    hearings for at least six months, but retained jurisdiction of
    this matter and ruled that all testimony to date would be includ-
    ed as part of the record upon the resumption of hearings
    (Agri-
    culture-Related Pollution,
    R72—9;
    7 PCB
    123, February 14,
    1973).
    DEVELOPMENT OF THIS REGULATION
    Soon thereafter the Agency asked the Illinois Institute
    for Environmental Quality
    (Institute)
    to convene an Agricultural
    Advisory Committee to draft proposed livestock waste regulations
    which would
    (a)
    be in compliance with federal guidelines,
    (b)
    meet the requirements of the Illinois Environmental Protection
    Act
    (Act)
    ,
    and
    (c)
    be generally acceptable
    to the agricultural
    community
    (R.
    13). This Agricultural Advisory Committee comprised
    22 members and represented state and federal agencies, seven
    agricultural producer organizations, the Illinois Agricultural
    Association,
    agricultural lending institutions, the League of
    Women Voters, the Sierra Club,
    and the Izaak Walton League.
    On
    November
    6,
    1973, the Institute submitted to the Board its Agri-
    cultural Advisory Committee’s “Proposed Regulations for Livestock
    14
    —
    429
    —2—
    Management Facilities and Livestock Waste-Han Ling Facilities”
    (Exhibit 1).
    The Board conducted four public hearings on these
    Proposed Regulations at Springfield, Macomb, Mt. Vernon, and
    Arnboy,
    Illinois, during January and February,
    1974.
    NEED FOR POLLUTION ABATEMENT
    The primary objective of these Regulations
    is to protect
    surface and ground waters from pollution caused by feedlot wastes.
    During the hearing at Macomb,
    Illinois, the Agency presented in-
    formation concerning six widely scattered livestock facilities to
    illustrate the scope and incidence of some current pollution prob-
    lems
    (R.
    269-336).
    Analyses were presented of water quality in
    streams both above and below the six livestock facilities
    (Exhibits
    16,
    17,
    20,
    21,
    22, and 23).
    These data showed that although up-
    stream water was of good quality, contamination at the various
    facilities
    caused downstream water to violate the general water
    quality standards of Chapter
    3,
    Water Pollution Regulations,
    in
    properties such as dissolved oxygen
    (DO),
    fecal coliforms,
    and
    ammonia nitrogen.
    There were also point discharges from these
    livestock facilities which violated the effluent standards of
    Chapter
    3
    in properties such
    as the five-day biological oxygen
    demand
    (BOD5),
    total suspended solids
    (TSS), and fecal coliforms.
    It was stressed that these six facilities were not typical, but
    that they illustrated ‘~someof the worst” livestock waste pollution
    problems
    (R,
    335).
    These serious pollution problem facilities
    probably represent ‘~under5 percent’~of the livestock operations
    in Illinois
    (R.
    357)
    The Agency also submitted a “Livestock Facility Complaint
    List’s
    (Exhibit
    9)
    summarizing complaints in their files concerning
    alleged pollution by 113 livestock management facilities.
    The
    Agency believes that there is “a much greater problem”
    (R.
    367)
    than
    is indicated by either the
    6 or 113 problem farms cited above.
    Many farmers testified that although a few livestock facilities
    caused significant pollution, most operators used good management
    practices
    to control pollution and were eager to maintain a health-
    ful environment, because they lived near their livestock operations.
    On a nation-wide basis,
    it
    is estimated that approximately 40
    of
    the dairy~ 35
    of the beef,
    and 30
    of the swine operations have
    some kind of feedlot runoff which may cause pollution.
    Poultry
    operations have few problems,
    if they are properly managed, because
    most of them are in confinement
    (R.
    357).
    Livestock wastes may pollute groundwater supplies because
    of improper management and siting and also under some soil and
    geological conditions.
    During the January
    8,
    1973, hearing in
    Urbana,
    Illinois,
    Mr. W.H. Walker of the Illinois State Water
    Survey presented analyses of water
    (pages 82 and 83 of that record)
    from farm wells
    in Washington County, Illinois, which contained
    more than 45 milligrams per liter of nitrates
    (equivalent to
    10
    mg/i of nitrates expressed as nitrogen, which is the standard in
    Chapter
    3, Water Pollution Regulations)
    .
    The elevated level of ni-
    trates in water from these shallow wells was attributed in part to
    pollution from livestock wastes and in part to the characteristics of
    14—430
    —3—
    the glacial drift in which the wells were dug.
    There is concern about excessive nitrates in water, be-
    cause there have been “cases of methemoglobinemia in certain
    infants under 3 months of age
    (and some other susceptible indi-
    viduals) at nitrate levels which are close to,
    or only
    2 to
    3
    times, the recommended limit of
    10 mg nitrate-nitrogen/i”
    (Exhibit
    46, page 2).
    Considerably higher levels are safe
    for normal
    adults.
    This problem is discussed more fully in our current
    R73—l3, Public Water Supplies proceeding.
    Data from the Agency indicate that some surface water
    supplies are increasing in nitrate content.
    Single samples from
    the water supplies of the
    7 cities of Bloomington, Charleston,
    Danville, Decatur, Eureka, Pontiac, and Streator contained 10 mg/I
    nitrate
    (expressed as
    N)
    or slightly more during part of 1972
    (R,84
    and Exhibit 5).
    Since these highest concentrations of nitrates in
    surface water supplies are in areas of low livestock numbers and
    usually occur during the spring months,
    they are probably not
    caused by livestock wastes.
    The Illinois Water Survey has outlined some of the non—
    point sources of water pollution from feedlot runoff and livestock
    wastes
    (Exhibit 13), and also studied pathogenic bacteria in the
    Spoon River in western Illinois, 1971-1973
    (Exhibit 27).
    In the
    latter study, the number of fecal coliforms was found during ex-
    tended periods to be above our Board standard in Rule 203(g)
    of Chapter
    3, Water Pollution Regulations.
    The ratios of fecal
    coliforms
    to fecal streptococci indicate that the fecal bacteria
    in the upper reaches of the Spoon River originated primarily from
    human wastes, but they originate primarily from livestock wastes
    in the lower one-third of the River
    (R.
    392).
    RELATIONSHIP OF CHAPTER 5 TO OTHER REGULATIONS
    These Chapter 5 Regulations deal primarily with concen-
    trated animal feeding operations.
    Such feedlot operations have
    been designated as point sources under Section 502(14) of the
    Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972
    (Public Law 92-500,
    33 U.S.C.
    1151 et seq., hereinafter referred to as the FWPCA)
    and
    therefore are required to secure National Pollutant Discharge
    Elimination System
    (NPDES)
    Permits in accordance with the pro-
    visions of Section
    402 of the FWPCA
    (see
    40 CFR 124 in Exhibit
    3
    and 40 CFR 412 in Exhibit 93).
    Part III of Chapter 5 authorizes
    the Agency to require and to issue NPDES Permits for certain
    other agricultural activities
    (fish farming and irrigation
    farm-
    ing)
    if these activities occur in Illinois at the size levels
    for which NPDES Permits are required.
    14—431
    —4—
    The Livestock Waste Regulations in Chapter 5 are
    closely related to the Water Pollution Regulations in Chapter
    3.
    In fact,
    the applicable water quality standards
    (and effluent
    standards if there is a point discharge in the absence of an un-
    usual rain—storm)
    in Chapter
    3 are also used in determining com-
    pliance with Chapter
    5,
    as will be explained later in connection
    with Rule 104(a) (1).
    In addition to complying with Chapter 5 Regulations, live-
    stock feedlots must comply with provisions
    of the Illinois Environ-
    mental Protection Act
    (Act)
    ,
    especially Sections 12(a)
    ,
    12(b)
    ,
    and
    9(a),
    and applicable Air Pollution Regulations of Chapter
    2 which
    deal with odor and dust nuisance problems.
    Although livestock
    odors are not harmful to health, they may be objectionable to some
    persons and create a nuisance.
    Local zoning for mutual protection
    and guidance of rural—urban development would be desirable to
    minimize such nuisance problems.
    PROPERTIES OF LIVESTOCK WASTES
    Livestock wastes are biodegradable and contain readily
    available plant nutrients. .~Therefore,they should be recycled
    promptly and properly to avoid excessive odors and to utilize
    the nutrients for producing more food without causing water
    pollution.
    The application of livestock manure to soil returns
    nutrients that originally were stored in the soil and is an
    excellent example of recycling.
    This common practice reduces the
    application rates of commercial fertilizers needed,
    thus saving
    cash costs and scarce resources.
    Therefore, livestock manure
    is
    a valuable by—product of animal production
    --
    not just waste that
    requires disposal.
    Properties of livestock wastes are dependent upon many
    factors, such as kind of livestock,
    age of animals, and the kind
    and amount of feed.
    Manure from milk cows and grazing ana young
    animals
    is
    less rich than that from animals being fattened on
    concentrates.
    Poultry manure contains a greater percent of total
    solids than does manure from larger animals
    (Table 1).
    One ton
    of average beef cattle manure contains approximately 12 pounds of
    nitrogen,
    5 pounds P205,
    and
    8 pounds •K20.
    14—432
    —5—
    Table
    1. Manure production and characteristics per 1,000 pounds
    live weight in confinement animal production*
    Item
    Dairy
    cow
    Beef
    feeder
    Swine
    feeder
    Hens
    Raw manure**
    (RM),
    lb.
    Total
    solids
    (TS),
    lb.
    Total solids, percent
    per
    per
    RN
    day
    day
    82
    10
    13
    60
    7
    12
    65
    6
    9
    53
    13
    25
    Nitrogen, percent TS
    Phosphorus, percent TS
    P205,
    percent TS
    3.9
    0.7
    1.6
    4.9
    1.6
    3.7
    7.5
    2.5
    5.7
    5.4
    2.1
    4.8
    Potassium,
    percent TS
    K20, percent TS
    2.6
    3.1
    3.6
    4.3
    4.9
    5.9
    2.3
    2.8
    *Exhibit 87. Farm Animal-waste Management. North Cent.
    Reg.
    Pub.
    206,
    1971,
    as revised from Amer.
    Soc.
    Agr.
    Eng. Structures and Environment Corn.
    412 Report
    AW—D-l,
    June 14,
    1973.
    **Feces and urine with no bedding.
    Many livestock operations are growing in size and convert-
    ing to confinement systems with slatted floors over pits,
    in which
    wastes are stored temporarily.
    The typical nutrient content of
    liquid livestock manure
    (feces and urine)
    in such pits is listed
    in Table
    2.
    Liquid manure
    is usually hauled directly from these
    pits and spread on the field.
    Table
    2. Pounds of nutrients contained in liquid manure
    from confinement animal production*
    Item
    Beef
    feeder
    Swine
    feeder
    Nitrogen,
    Nitrogen,
    per 1,000 gallons
    per ton
    36
    9
    55
    13
    P205, per
    ~20S, per
    1,000 gallons
    ton
    18
    4
    27
    6
    K2O, per
    K20, per
    1,000 gallons
    ton
    27
    6
    34
    8
    *Exhibit 56. Braids,
    O.C. Land Disposal Management of Livestock
    Wastes.
    1972.
    14
    —
    433
    —6—
    Other methods of handling liquid livestock manure are
    to use anaerobic treatment in lagoons outside or use aerobic
    treatment either inside or outside.
    Under aerobic treatment,
    which minimizes odors, nitrogen is converted to microbial tissue
    and is oxidized to nitrates in the liquid.
    During anaerobic
    biological breakdown,
    much nitrogen is volatilized as ammonia and
    lost.
    Other nutrients settle in bottom sludge, which should be
    returned periodically to the land.
    NITROGEN TRANSFORMATIONS
    AND
    MOVEMENT IN SOILS
    Soils have large adsorptive capacities for phosphorus and
    potassium, and these nutrients are less mobile than nitrate
    nitrogen.
    Therefore,
    if soil erosion
    is controlled, losses of
    phosphorus and potassium are minimal,
    and pollution is usually
    not a problem.
    Nitrogen occurs
    in various forms in soils.
    “Nitrogen added
    to the soil in manure solids occurs largely in organic forms (un-
    digested proteins and the bodies of micro—organisms)
    ,
    whereas
    liquid manure may also contain significant amounts of ammonia, the
    latter having been formed from urea through hydrolysis”
    (R.870).
    As organic matter in animal manures decays, the more complex nitrogen—
    bearing compounds are broken down and nitrogen undergoes transforma-
    tions to more simple forms.
    Common transformations that~nitrogen
    undergoes are illustrated in the following diagram which was adapted
    from testimony given by Drs.
    L.T.
    Kurtz
    (Exhibit 54)
    and F.J.
    Stevenson
    (R.
    870),
    Professors in the U~iiversityof Illinois
    Agronomy Department:
    Atmosphere
    NH3
    .4’
    N2 and N20
    4~Denitrification
    +
    Nitrification
    -
    ~NH4
    ~No3
    Mineralization
    Immobilization
    Soil
    Animal
    wastes
    Residues
    Fertilizer
    Rain
    Organic N
    Leaching
    14—434
    “In considering mineralization and immobilization, we
    are involved with the quantity of nitrogen that will be present
    in inorganic
    forms.
    It
    is a well-known fact that when organic
    residues low in nitrogen (~l.2)
    are added to soil,
    there is an
    initial net loss of inorganic nitrogen through consumption by
    raicroorganisms.
    On the other hand, when residues high in nitrogen
    (~1,8)
    are applied, there will be an initial net gain in inorganic
    nitrogen.
    In any event,
    at the end of the growing season,
    some of
    the nitrogen added in the residues will remain behind in the soil
    in an organic form”
    (R.
    871).
    The addition of animal manure and plant residues to the
    soil stimi~jlatesthe growth of organisms which attack the organic
    constituents.
    Part of the carbon
    is volatilized as CO2 and part
    is incorporated into the bodies of microorganisms.
    “For soils in
    the temperate region of the earth, about one-third of the carbon
    will remain in the soil.
    There
    is evidence that a higher percentage
    (uSO)
    will remain when manures are applied at high rates”
    (R.372).
    Nitrogen is preserved along with carbon in the ratio of approximately
    10 parts carbon to one part nitrogen.
    Table
    3 gives the amounts of
    potential inorganic nitrogen released by the application of
    10 tons
    of manure (dry-weight basis)
    containing variable amounts of nitrogen
    (retention of one-third and one-half of the carbon).
    Table
    3. Nitrogen balance for application of
    10 tons of
    animal manure
    (dry-weight basis)
    (R.875 and 876).
    N
    in
    man—
    Total
    nitrogen
    One-third retention
    of carbon
    One-half retention
    of carbon
    Retained
    Retained
    ure
    in
    residues
    Inorganic
    N
    in
    Inorganic
    residues
    N
    lbs
    lbs
    lbs
    lbs
    lbs
    2.0
    400
    300
    100
    450
    *
    2.5
    500
    300
    200
    450
    50
    3.0
    600
    300
    300
    450
    150
    3.5
    700
    300
    400
    450
    250
    4.0
    800
    300
    500
    450
    350
    5.0
    1,000
    300
    700
    450
    550
    *
    For nitrogen contents less than 2,
    there may be
    a net loss of
    mineral nitrogen from the soil through immobilization.
    14—435
    —8—
    Table
    4 gives the approximate tons of manure (dry-weight
    basis) that would be required to provide 200 pounds of available
    mineral nitrogen.
    The quantity required does not follow a 1:1
    relationship to nitrogen content, because increasing the nitrogen
    content lowers the percentage
    of the nitrogen that will remain in
    the soil at the end of the first season.
    Table
    4.
    Estimated tons of manure
    (dry—weight
    basis)
    per acre required to provide
    200 pounds of available mineral
    nitrogen
    (R.878)
    Nitrogen
    in
    manure
    One-third
    retention
    of carbon
    One-half
    retention
    of carbon
    tons
    tons
    2.0
    2.5
    3.0
    3.5
    4.5
    20
    10
    7
    5
    4
    *
    40
    13
    8
    6
    *Very high rates required b~causeof net
    immobilization.
    The data given in Tables
    3 and 4 apply to a single appli-
    cation of manure.
    “The residual organic matter remaining in the
    soil after the first year, representing one-third to one-half of
    the manure initially applied, undergoes further decomposition dur-
    ing subsequent years with the release of bound nitrogen.
    Approx-
    imately one-half of the nitrogen remaining after each year will be
    mineralized the succeeding year until complete ‘humification’ has
    occurred after about
    5 years
    (R.879).
    .
    .
    .
    In practical terms,
    this means that application rates for an equivalent amount of in-
    organic nitrogen will need to be reduced each succeeding year for
    five years, after which the rate would be constant and equivalent
    to the addition of an equal quantity of inorganic nitrogen”
    (R.880).
    Successive manure applications on a given field for five or more
    years are rare except where a small area is used for disposal.
    Common farm practice is to apply manure over larger areas, usually to
    the most responsive crop in the rotation, for economic utilization
    of nutrients.
    Guidelines
    for field application of livestock wastes
    will be discussed in connection with Rule 104(e)
    14—436
    —9—
    Dr. Kurtz summarized the transformations that nitrogen
    undergoes in soils
    in the following language
    (see Exhibit 54
    and the diagram on page 6).
    “Nitrogen in organic materials,
    such
    as animal manures,
    is usually transformed during decay
    processes to the ammonium (NHT~) form.
    .
    .
    .
    Under some conditions
    (such as alkaline reaction),
    appreciable amounts of ammonia
    (NH3)
    nitrogen may escape to the atmosphere.
    .
    .
    Axnmonium nitrogen,
    in turn, is normally converted by microbes to the nitrate form
    (NO~) of nitrogen.
    .
    .
    .
    Ammonium and nitrate forms of nitrogen
    are thus the inorganic forms that eventually result from break-
    down of nitrogenous materials.
    These are the forms in the soil
    that are utilized by plants.
    These, along with urea,
    are the forms
    contained in commercial fertilizers.
    .
    .
    .
    Ammonium and nitrate
    nitrogen released from decomposition of manure are the same as
    ammonium and nitrate from commercial fertilizer.
    Their behaviors
    in the soil are the same regardless of whether these forms of
    nitrogen originated in manure or fertilizer.”
    “Nitrate and ammonium forms behave differently in soils
    (Exhibit 54, Kurtz).
    .
    .
    .
    The ammonium (NH~) form of nitrogen
    is strongly attracted to clay particles and to soil organic matter
    and its movement in the soil is quite limited.
    .
    .
    .
    Nitrate
    nitrogen is not held appreciably upon the surface of particles
    in
    the soils of our region.
    The nitrate ion is virtually free in the
    soil solution and moves about in the soil with the soil water.”
    This mobile nitrate nitrogen is the form that is primarily impli-
    cated in water pollution.
    “Denitrification is the process whereby nitrate
    is converted
    to inert gases
    (N2 and N2O)
    through the activities of micro-
    organisms
    (Stevenson, R.88l).
    .
    .
    .
    Denitrification
    -—
    the least
    understood aspect of the nitrogen cycle in soil
    ——
    could well be
    the most important single factor causing variability in soil nitrate
    levels when nitrogenous organic wastes are applied to the soil.
    The
    process has long been considered undesirable but, from the stand-
    point of waste disposal,
    it may be an asset in that the content of
    nitrate in drainage waters may be drastically reduced.”
    Optimum
    conditions for denitrification are poor aeration and drainage,
    generous supply of readily decomposable organic matter for micro-
    organisms,
    temperatures of 75°Fand above, soil reaction near neutral,
    and a long residence time of nitrate in the soil.
    Experiments in
    Illinois indicate that an average of approximately one-third of the
    nitrate added to or formed in soils will be lost in gaseous products
    through denitrification
    (Exhibit 54 and R.885).
    Exceptions to this
    generalization include sandy soils and perhaps soils with pH values
    below about 5.5.
    From the above discussion it can be seen that the amount
    of nitrate available to plants, or subject to leaching, will re-
    14
    —
    437
    —10—
    present the difference between the total nitrogen applied
    (in
    animal manure, plant residues, fertilizer, and rain)
    and the
    amounts which volatilize
    (NH3, N2, and N20) and remain in organic
    nitrogen.
    Nitrate nitrogen moves through Illinois soils at approx-
    imately the same rate as the water in which it is dissolved
    (Exhibit 54).
    Water movement is determined by soil permeability
    which,
    in turn,
    is influenced by properties
    such as the texture,
    structure,
    and porosity of various soil horizons.
    If nitrate is
    added to the surface of a wet soil and water
    is added at a uniform
    rate,
    the nitrate will move down through the soil, beginning in
    a
    relatively narrow concentrated wave,
    If “water additions are con-
    tinued,
    and the concentrated wave of nitrate continues to move
    down,
    the wave gradually spreads in a vertical direction and be-
    comes less concentrated as it mixes with additional water,
    With
    continued leaching, the wave of nitrate moves on down through the
    profile, gradually becoming broader in the vertical direction and
    less concentrated,
    Under ideal conditions the wave of nitrate is
    symmetrical and the crest of the wave occurs at the front of the
    water entering the soil after the nitrate addition”
    (Exhibit 54,
    Kurtz).
    Under actual soil conditions, the wave of nitrate is often
    not symmetrical because of variations in rainfall, evaporation and
    transpiration, changes in direction of water movement, and differ-
    ences in soil properties within the profile.
    In addition to down-
    ward movement of water in response to gravity, water and dissolved
    nitrates may move laterally to tile drains or along textural dis—
    continuities, such as in sand layers or above claypans or bedrock.
    Information published in “Soils of
    Illinois”
    (Exhibit 76)
    and
    county soil reports indicates the distribution, properties, suit-
    ability for various uses, and management requirements for each
    soil type in the State.
    This information will be helpful in
    developing guidelines for field application of livestock wastes in
    connection with Rule 104 (e).
    OTHER USES OF LIVESTOCK WASTES
    There has been
    a recent resurgence of interest in
    anaerobic digestion of livestock wastes for methane production
    because of energy shortages and costs,
    According to Dr. D,L.
    Day,
    Professor of Agricultural Engineering, University
    of Illinois,
    “this certainly has a potential for an energy supply; however,
    many problems are inherent in the successful operation of
    anaerobic digesters
    in addition to the cost of the digester and
    the disposal of the remaining liquids and sludge.
    .
    .
    Another
    problem is the large gas storage capacity required because of the
    dilute energy concentration in digester gas compared to gasoline”
    (Exhibit 87).
    An anaerobic digester “would involve a higher
    14—438
    —11—
    initial cost than does the construction of a lagoon and would
    require more sophisticated management.
    In return,
    this unit
    offers a higher degree of organic removal, the production of
    a
    useful gas, an escape from the problem of lagoon odors, and a
    means of preventing groundwater pollution”
    (Exhibit 87. Farm
    Animal-waste Management.
    North Cent.
    Reg.
    Pub.
    206.
    1971).
    Adoption of this method of handling livestock wastes
    is governed
    more by economic relationships than by technology, and it
    is
    probably more applicable to large operations than to small ones.
    However, some small farm digesters have been reported recently
    in popular farm magazine articles.
    Research results and practical interest are inqreasing
    in
    the use of nutrients in animal wastes for feeding livestock.
    This
    method of recycling is promising and it is likely to become more
    widespread.
    See “Farm Animal—waste Management”
    (~NorthCent.
    Reg.
    Pub.
    206.
    1971), which is
    part of Exhibit 87, and “Processing and
    Managementof Agricultural Waste”
    (Proc.
    of Cornell Agr. Waste
    Mgt.
    Conf., March 25—27, 1974), which was not officially sub-
    mitted in this record but contains much valuable information.
    ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF THIS REGULATION
    There are approximately 121,000
    farms in Illinois.
    81,000
    of these farms have some kind of livestock,
    of which 40,000 have
    enough livestock to be considered as feedlots
    (R.365).
    The
    numbers of various kinds of livestock farms
    (with annual sales of
    $2,500 and over)
    in Illinois at the time of the 1969 Census of
    Agriculture were as follows:
    Poultry farms
    660
    Dairy farms
    6,599
    Other livestock farms, mostly beef cattle and hogs
    33,622
    Total
    40,881
    Dr.
    R.N. Van Arsdall, Agricultural Economist, U.S.
    Department of Agriculture and stationed at the University of
    Illinois since 1949, presented detailed results of recent U.S.D.A.
    research concerning the economic implications of water pollution
    abatement in livestock production.
    Impacts considered “include
    those on individual farmers for whom remedial action will be
    necessary,
    those unaffected by proposed guidelines, pressures on
    local community service firms, supply availability, and prices of
    livestock products
    to consumers”
    (R.795).
    Dr. Van Arsdall’s testimony is based largely on economic
    impact studies
    in 1973 by U.S.D.A.
    of water pollution abatement
    on beef, dairy, and hog farms, two Ph.D.
    theses at the University
    of Illinois concerning beef and hog farms, and U.S.D.A. Econ.
    Res.
    Serv.
    Pub.
    508, entitled “Economic Implications of Water Pollution
    14
    —439
    —12—
    Abatement in Family Farm Livestock Production”~by R.N. Van
    Arsdall and J.B. Johnson
    (Exhibit 49).
    Results of the U.S.D.A.
    “analyses generally do not go below the regional level, but
    results for the Corn Belt-Lake States reflect the situation for
    Illinois.
    And since I was concerned with this region, naturally
    Illinois was kind of central
    in my thinking in the research”
    (R.796).
    These economic impact analyses were initiated prior to the announce-
    ment of the proposed effluent guidelines of September 7,
    1973.
    Al-
    though the guidelines assumed for research do not coincide exactly
    with those announced in September 1973, they are sufficiently close
    to allow meaningful judgments to be made concerning the economic
    impact of the implementation of the official guidelines.
    Dr. Van Arsdall summarized the results of the above economic
    impact studies in the following language
    (R.797-806).
    It should be
    remembered that prices have risen sharply since these studies were
    made during 1972 and 1973.
    “Livestock producers confronted with
    a
    need to control runoff from production sites have several alterna-
    tives ranging from cessation of production to construction of
    totally confined systems, with all livestock activities under roof.
    So long as open lot systems of production are extensively
    employed,
    as they are in Illinois and throughout the Corn Belt,
    the best practical technology is to prevent runoff from entering
    and leaving the production
    area.
    This is commonly achieved with a
    system of diversion terraces,
    settling basin, retention pond and
    some means
    for dispersing the polluted runoff over farmland.
    This
    solution forms the basis for the U.S.D.A.
    Economic Research Service
    estimates of direct investments and annual costs for controlling
    runoff in U.S.
    livestock production.
    Contract costs are assumed
    with each producer installing all necessary facilities.
    .
    “Nationally, such control measures would require more than
    280,000 beef, dairy,
    and hog producers to invest nearly three—
    quarters of a billion dollars
    (an average of about $2,700 per farm).
    This amount of new investment and its associated annual costs are
    large sums of money, but they are small in comparison with exist-
    ing investments in production facilities and annual gross receipts
    from cattle,
    hogs,
    and dairy products.
    .
    “What
    is of great significance is that investments and
    annual costs for runoff control do not fall equally on all farmers
    and service firms, nor on all regions of the country.
    .
    .
    .
    Some
    farmers will find the cost of runoff control too expensive for
    them to bear;
    others will gain from it to the extent that supplies
    drop and prices rise.
    States
    (such as Illinois)
    with good crop-
    growing rainfall will be disadvantaged in livestock production.
    If supply is reduced during the adjustment period, consumers will
    pay higher prices.
    “Producers with the smallest enterprises will be confront-
    ed with the highest unit costs for control of runoff.
    Cattle feeders
    14 —440
    —13—
    needing additional runoff control in the Eastern region, which
    includes Illinois, would have to invest an average of about $145
    per head of lot capacity on farms selling fewer than 100 head
    annually.
    This would increase cost of production about $4.00
    per 100 pounds of gain.
    Estimated new investment per head drops
    to $21 for feedlots selling 100 to 199 head and to $12 for those
    selling 200 to 499 head.
    It is only about
    $3 per head for feed-
    lots turning out more than 1,000 cattle.”
    A somewhat elaborate
    demonstration cattle feedlot runoff control facility constructed
    in 1973 on the Ronald Lawfer farm in Jo Daviess County,
    Illinois,
    cost a total of $8,000 for a capacity of 200 animals,
    or $40 per
    head
    (R.
    477,
    813).
    “In this region, dairymen with 15—cow herds would have to
    invest an average of $187 per cow, which would add $50 per cow to
    annual costs or about $0.40 per 100 pounds of milk produced.
    In-
    vestment per cow drops to $70 for 30-cow herds, $35 for 80-cow
    herds, and $25 for 150-cow herds.
    With a 150-cow herd, control of
    runoff addsonly $0.06 to the cost of producing 100 pounds of milk.
    “Hog producers with uncontrolled runoff in the Corn Belt—
    Lake States would have an average new investment requirement of
    $56 per head sold if they were in the 1- to 99-head sales class;
    but only $4.35 per head if they exceeded 1,000 head sold annually.
    Corresponding added annual costs for these two extremes
    would be $3.90 and about $0.25 per 100 pounds of pork produced.
    “Most of the fed cattle,
    hogs,
    and milk produced in Illinois
    comes from relatively small enterprises.
    In 1969, sixty—five per-
    cent of Illinois hog producers sold fewer than 200 hogs a year.
    Another 24 percent sold 200 to 499 head annually.
    Combined,
    these
    producers accounted for
    57 percent of total output.
    In dairying,
    over half the farmers with milk cows had less than 20 cows;
    91
    percent had fewer than 50
    cows.
    Together,
    farms with these dairy
    enterprises accounted for nearly three-fourths of all dairy cows
    in the State.
    Cattle feeding reflected the same situation.
    Over
    90 percent of the feeders sold fewer than 200 slaughter cattle a
    year, accounting for about half of total output for the State of
    Illinois.
    Obviously, we are going to fall
    in the high unit—cost
    category for most of our operations and most of our production.
    Control of surface runoff from all sizes of livestock operations
    will generate high unit-costs for many farmers and a substantial
    proportion
    of livestock production of
    the State.
    The same situation
    holds for other states in the region dominated by family farm size
    livestock operations.
    “Generally, the impact of controlling runoff from livestock
    operations will be to accelerate most on—going adjustments.
    Spec-
    ifically,
    the outcomes will be as follows:
    1.
    “The drop-out rate for small enterprises, which
    is already rather high, will increase with
    farmers suffering loss of income as
    a result of
    runoff control requirements
    to the extent that
    they cease production sooner than they would
    have due to other economic forces.
    14
    —441
    —14—
    2.
    “The shift to totally confined systems of
    production will increase.
    Confinement has
    proven economically advantageous, especially
    for the larger hog enterprises, even without
    consideration of runoff control.
    This system
    of production minimizes the possibility of
    damaging runoff from the site of production.
    3.
    “Given a size of enterprise, costs of runoff
    control will be greater in the more humid
    states.
    Cost differences are sufficient to
    encourage the on-going east-to—west shift in
    this region in hog production, but they are not
    great enough to give one state an overwhelming
    economic advantage over another.
    Cattle feeding,
    however, will be disadvantaged in favor of the
    strongly developing cattle feeding areas in the
    Plains States, where precipitation is relatively
    low and large feedlots are dominant.
    4.
    “Local business firms geared to the servicing
    of small livestock enterprises will be affected
    in proportion to the increase in the drop-out
    rate for producers.
    Some will doubtless have to
    make more rapid adjustments or cease operations
    sooner than they would have during the normal
    course of industry adjustment.
    5.
    “Long—range impacts of runoff control on supply
    of livestock products, henpe costs to consumers,
    are expected to~besmall.
    In part, production
    shifts will be made to sizes of enterprises and
    to regions of the country where the annual costs
    of runoff control amount to only a few cents per
    hundredweight of beef, pork, or milk.
    In part,
    farmers will adopt totally confined systems which
    control runoff and are competitive with open—lot
    systems if they are large enough.
    6.
    “Impacts during the adjustment period, however, may
    well be rather severe.
    Certainly the smaller pro-
    ducers and those with severe problem situations
    who are forced to go out of business will experi-
    ence economic
    loss.
    The same applies to affected
    service businesses.
    “Consumers could pay more for pork if some producers
    liquidate their hog enterprises faster than others
    increase theirs, resulting in
    a smaller supply.
    Price change will be much greater than change in
    supply in relative terms.
    Prices would remain high
    until remaining producers have time to expand their
    facilities and increase output.
    Of course, pro—
    ducers remaining in business will have the advantage
    of such price increases.
    14—442
    —15—
    “The same situation exists in dairying, and
    milk
    is already in short supply.
    Currently,
    the dairy industry is operating at full capacity.
    An accelerated drop-out of smaller dairymen will
    reduce supply, which will result in higher prices
    to consumers.
    It will also result in more dairy
    cows going to slaughter since dairymen remaining
    in business do not presently have the capacity to
    absorb them.
    Such impairment of productive capacity
    could keep supply down and prices high for a number
    of years.
    “Consumers will experience only a nominal increase
    in the price of beef as
    a result of runoff control,
    even during the adjustment period when many of the
    smaller feeders might cease production in
    a short
    time.
    Feeder animals previously headed for feeding
    in these small lots will simply go to larger feed-
    lots, especially in the Plains States, where extra
    capacity already exists or could be created quickly
    at nominal added cost.
    7.
    “The shorter the time period available to achieve
    runoff control, the greater will be the disruption
    of the livestock industry, hence the greater the
    magnitude of the economic impacts during the adjust-
    ment period.
    More gradual application of runoff
    control measures will moderate the undesirable
    effects of such a program and make it possible
    for many more farmers to get the technical assistance
    necessary to apply runoff control measures properly.”
    Most commercial poultry operations, except for some replace-
    ment stock rearing and turkeys, are in total confinement.
    There-
    fore,
    runoff should not be
    a serious problem with good management
    practices,
    including handling of waste that is removed from the
    house, and new investment
    in water pollution control for poultry
    should be less than for hogs and cattle
    (R.808).
    Overall, sufficient funds are available to agriculture to
    install necessary pollution control facilities.
    However,
    “it is
    entirely different when you get to individual farms”
    (R.
    811).
    This latter point was emphasized by several agricultural lenders
    (R.
    244,
    753)
    and many farmers,
    especially young farmers who have
    to borrow money to operate
    (R.
    423,
    856,
    895,
    967,
    977, and Exhibit
    50).
    Pollution control improvement costs present special problems
    on rented farms because two people are involved
    ——
    the owner and
    the operator.
    Dr.
    F.J.
    Reiss, Professor of Agricultural Economics,
    University of Illinois, outlined alternative ways of sharing these
    costs through appropriate lease arrangements
    (R.
    635-647).
    14—443
    —16—
    The new Illinois Industrial Pollution Control Financing
    Authority can stamp bonds to make them exempt from federal tax
    so that a bank which obtains these bonds can loa~hthe funds for
    pollution control facilities at lower than normal interest rate
    (R.
    970).
    However,
    it
    is doubtful whether this will be
    as avail-
    able to small livestock feeders and their banks as to larger
    organizations, because of the cost of arranging such bonds.
    EVALUATION OF INDIVIDUAL NEEDS
    The achievement of pollution abatement will involve action
    and understanding by many people and organizations.
    Farmers
    should become informed (through the Cooperative Extension Service
    and others)
    concerning situations where pollution is often a prob-
    lem and various methods for controlling it.
    Each farmer should
    evaluate his livestock operations and,
    if additional measures for
    pollution control are needed, he can consult with representatives
    of the Extension Service, Soil Conservation Service, Environmental
    Protection Agency, agricultural businesses, and other sources to
    plan effective pollution control measures for his farm.
    Each live-
    stock operation will require individual attention.
    After making
    financial arrangements, the necessary physical alterations should
    be made to adequately control pollution from livestock operations.
    EXPLANATION OF SPECIFIC RULES
    The explanations given in the remainder of this Opinion
    are intended to provide background for specific rules in the
    Livestock Waste Regulations, which were adopted by the Board on
    August
    29 and amended September
    5,
    1974.
    Major attention is given
    to those rules which were most controversial, with little or no
    explanation of rules which are self—explanatory.
    101 AUTHORITY
    The Regulations begin with a statement setting forth the
    authority of the Board to adopt regulations in this
    field.
    The Illinois Environmental Protection Act, as amended in 1973,
    directs the Board to adopt requirements, standards,
    and pro-
    cedures which will enable the State to participate in the
    National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
    established by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amend-
    ments
    (FWPCA)
    of
    1972.
    102 POLICY
    The Regulations include a statement of policy pointing out
    that the livestock industry is essential to the well—being
    of Illinois citizens and the nation, and pointing out also
    that livestock produce wastes which, when properly used,
    supply nutrients and organic matter to soils and which,
    when improperly used or disposed of, may undesirably affect
    the environment,
    Rule 102 indicates that the purpose of
    these Regulations
    is to prevent air and water pollution
    which might be caused by failure to plan the construction,
    14
    —444
    —17—
    location, and operation of feedlots with regard to proper
    environmental safeguards.
    It also points out that the
    purpose of these Regulations
    is to establish
    a permit program
    for certain feedlots to meet federal requirements.
    103 DEFINITIONS
    The technical terms used in these Regulations are defined
    in
    accordance with extended discussions with experts in the
    field.
    It should be noted that these Regulations pertain
    only to livestock feedlots, which are defined as those
    structures and confinement areas whose sole purpose is as
    concentrated feeding areas.
    The Regulations do not deal
    with pastures or other areas used in the growing of crops or
    vegetation.
    The following definitions are identical to definitions of the
    same terms which appear in the Illinois Environmental Protection
    Act, and the Pollution Control Board Regulations, Chapter
    3,
    Water Pollution:
    Act, Administrator, Agency, Air Pollution,
    Board,
    FWPCA, NPDES, Person, Pollutant,
    and Water
    Pollution.
    The other definitions are self-explanatory except for the
    following ones in which the intent needs to be expanded.
    Impermeable:
    Impermeable is usually defined as “not permitting
    passage”; but in this Chapter it is
    interpreted as “not permit-
    ting perceptible passage of fluids under the usual pressure
    differences found in constructed livestock waste-hai~dIing
    facilities.”
    Concrete manure-holding tanks can be made im-
    permeable, but most soils in which manure-holding ponds and
    lagoons are constructed Rule
    104(d) (3) (A)
    and
    (B)
    are not
    strictly impermeable.
    Therefore,
    “perceptible”
    and “usual
    pressure” were incorporated into the definition of “impermeable”
    to recognize the practical necessity of this usage; but it does
    not give license to have structures
    from which liquids seep
    or contaminate surface water or groundwater
    (R.
    59,
    1104).
    Livestock Feedlot
    is defined as an area in which livestock
    are fed and concentrated in such
    a limited area
    (E600 square
    feet per 1000 pounds live weight)
    that crop or forage growth
    is not sustained in the area of confinement
    (R.455,
    461, and
    Exhibit 65).
    Livestock Waste—Handling Facility includes a variety of con-
    structions and devices,
    such as manure—holding pits and
    lagoons,
    as well as acceptable disposal areas in fields.
    Acceptable
    field disposal areas were discussed repeatedly
    during the hearings
    (R. 115,
    495,
    503,
    666, 913—918, and
    Exhibit 63).
    “In many instances, agricultural land can be
    used
    as an adequate filtering device to settle out and
    assimilate pollutants before the clarified water reaches
    any flowing stream”
    (R.
    916).
    Acceptable field disposal
    14—445
    —18—
    areas
    include pasture or cultivated land where liquids
    from a holding pond could move down into a distributive,
    broad-based, almost parallel terrace system -to provide ade-
    quate vegetative filtering before the clarified water reaches
    a channelized stream
    (R.
    503).
    Under some circumstances,
    grass waterways may be used as part of the treatment works,
    but these must be used carefully to avoid overloading and
    pollution
    (R.
    495).
    Feedlots that are on nearly level land,
    receive no outside water, and have an adequate area of good
    vegetative filter between the feedlot and any surface waters
    may not need containment facilities
    (R.
    914).
    Modification refers specifically to changes in facilities
    which increase the amount of livestock waste over the level
    authorized by the NPDES Permit.
    This does not apply to
    ordinary maintenance of livestock facilities where the
    authorized level of livestock wastes is not exceeded.
    104
    LIVESTOCK MANAGEMENT FACILITY AND LIVESTOCK WASTE-HANDLING
    FACILITY OPERATIONS
    Rule
    104 sets
    forth requirements which are applicable
    to any
    livestock management
    facility or livestock waste—handling
    facility, whether or not it is required to secure an NPDES
    Permit.
    This Rule
    is intended to describe the minimum re-
    quirements for operating such a facility in a manner which
    will be consistent with good practice and the NPDES
    Permit
    systern.
    (a) General Criteria
    (1)
    Besides the Regulations contained within this
    Chapter, each feedlot operator needs to be familiar
    with the Act and Chapter
    2
    (Air Pollution), and should
    pay particular attention to the following Rules in
    Chapter
    3 by which many water pollution violations are
    determined.
    Every person shall comply with Rules 201,
    203, and 205 of Part II, Chapter
    3, and Rules 301 and
    302 of Part III, Chapter
    3, Water Pollution Regulations
    of Illinois.
    The water quality standards listed in
    Rules 203 and 205 shall apply to water in the receiving
    channelized stream or other body of water, outside a
    proper mixing zone.
    In addition,
    no discharge shall,
    alone or in combination with other sources, cause
    a
    violation of any applicable water quality standard.
    When the Agency finds that a discharge that complies
    with water quality standards
    in Rules 203 and 205 of
    Chapter
    3 is causing a violation of other applicable
    water quality standards,
    the Agency shall take appro-
    priate action under Section 31 or Section
    39 of the Act
    to require the discharge to meet whatever discharge
    limits are necessary to ensure compliance with the other
    applicable water quality standards.
    When such a viola-
    tion is caused by the cumulative effect of more than one
    source, several sources may be joined in an enforcement
    or variance proceeding, and measures for necessary dis-
    charge alterations will be determined on the basis of
    technical feasibility, economic reasonableness, and
    fairness to all dischargers.
    14—446
    —19—
    As
    is explained below for Rule 104 (a) (2)
    feedlots should have waste-handling facilities so
    that there
    is no discharge directly to a channeliz-
    ed stream except in the case of an unusual storm.
    A problem arises if discharges occur more frequent-
    ly than allowed by the unusual rain—storm exceptions.
    For example, there may be chronic seepage from a
    holding pond through an unacceptable dispo~alarea
    and thence downhill to the creek, causing water
    quality violations even in the absence of severe
    rainfall.
    In such a case a violation would have
    occurred.
    Of course, water
    in feedlot runoff must either
    evaporate, enter a stream,or join the groundwater.
    However, when the precipitation that falls on feed-
    lots does find its way back to streams or ground-
    water, normally after flowing through an area planted
    with crops or pasture,
    it
    is the intent of these
    Regulations that it will be pure enough not to cause
    a violation of water quality standards nor to cause
    groundwater pollution.
    This purification will occur
    if the operator locates the facility properly,
    stores
    manure in a suitable manner, maintains adequate
    diversion dikes and roof gutters, as needed,
    and
    properly disposes of the waste through an acceptable
    field disposal area or by direct application to
    agricultural land.
    If there should be a point discharge from a
    livestock feedlot,
    in the absence of an unusual
    rain-storm
    (see explanation of Rule 104 (a) (2)
    below,
    effluent standards of Part IV, Chapter
    3, Water
    Pollution Regulations of
    Illinois, shall apply, as
    well as the water quality standards specified above.
    Although air pollution rules are not specifically in-
    cluded herein, livestock operations.are subject to the
    nuisance provisions of Chapter
    2, Air Pollution,
    and the Act.
    Odor problems are especially trouble-
    some and should be avoided by good management
    practices.
    (2)
    According to federal effluent guidelines which
    are operative, livestock feedlots are designated
    as a point source, which “is any discernible, con-
    fined or discrete conveyance including
    .
    .
    .
    a
    concentrated animal feeding operation from which
    pollutants are or may be discharged”
    (R.
    208).
    These feedlots should have waste-handling facilities
    so that there is no discharge directly to a channeliz—
    ed stream except in the case of an unusual rain—storm
    (10-year, 24-hour rainfall event by 1977,
    and a 25-
    year,
    24—hour rainfall event by 1983)
    (40 CFR 412 in
    Exhibit 93 and
    R.
    355,
    792).
    14—447
    —20—
    (3)
    To
    prevent
    any
    possible
    misunderstanding,
    this Rule is included to indicate that stock-
    yards and similar operations where animals are
    held briefly,
    as well as conventional livestock
    operations, shall comply with these Regulations.
    (4)
    Livestock wastes are sometimes transported
    on public roads past homes.
    During such trans-
    portation,
    care should be taken to prevent odor
    nuisance or waste spillage which would violate
    the Act or applicable regulations.
    (b) Location of New Livestock Management Facilities and New
    Livestock Waste-Handling Facilities
    After much discussion
    in the record and careful review
    by the Board,
    all four subsections of Rule 104(b)
    are
    restricted to new livestock facilities.
    (1)
    This was one of the most widely discussed rules
    during the hearings.
    On December 17, 1973, the
    Agency submitted to the Board a proposed amendment to
    this Rule to delete the second word
    (new)
    so that the
    amended Rule would apply to all livestock facilities
    instead of only new ones.
    The Agency indicated that
    outright prohibition of streams flowing through feed-
    lots would simplify enforcement and prevent water
    quality degradation
    (R.
    112-116).
    Mrs. Louise Rome
    (R.
    87)
    and Mr. Ralph Evans
    (R.
    393) supported this
    proposed amendment by the Agency.
    Numerous farmers
    and agriculturists
    (R.
    154,
    181,
    407,
    463,
    530,
    574,
    616,
    625,
    660,
    951,
    965, and 1026)
    urged that the
    original language be retained and pointed out the
    hardship and disruption that would be caused to
    existing facilities by such an amendment.
    Existing
    cattle operations, such as in northwestern Illinois,
    would be especially affected by such an amendment.
    There are genuine problems,
    as presented by both
    sides.
    The Board retained the original language,
    with an outright prohibition of streams or other sur-
    face waters in new feedlots’.
    However, all livestock
    feedlots must avoid water pollution
    (Rule 203).
    Therefore,
    each operator should examine his live-
    stock facility and,
    if necessary,
    take steps
    (diver-
    sions,. fencing,
    etc.)
    to prevent water pollution if a
    stream or other surface waters are in or near his
    feedlot.
    (2)
    The Agency suggested an amendment to this Rule
    which would have simplified
    it, but it would have
    still applied to both new and existing livestock
    facilities within 10-year flood heights.
    Grave
    concern was expressed by several farmers
    (R.
    406,
    ~452,and 455), especially in the Rock River flood-
    plain
    (R.
    891,
    892,
    894,
    898, and 1026), that if
    this Rule applied to existing livestock feedlots
    14—448
    —21—
    it would cause many of them on floodplains to
    discontinue operations.
    On the basis of testimony
    given, the Board decided to restrict this Rule to
    new livestock facilities.
    (3)
    Although these Regulations are concerned primarily
    with water pollution,
    this Rule prohibits the location
    of new livestock facilities close enough to populated
    areas to cause air pollution as defined in Section 9(a)
    of the Act and Chapter
    2,
    Air Pollution Regulations.
    No. minimum distance is specified because of differences
    in the size and character of livestock operations, air
    movement, and differences in populated areas.
    Both new
    and existing livestock facilities shall be operated so
    as to not cause air pollution.
    (4)
    In locating new livestock facilities, special care
    should be taken to avoid rapidly permeable soils and
    geological formations where groundwater can be easily
    polluted by livestock wastes.
    Rapidly permeable soils
    occupy approximately 5 percent of the area of Illinois
    (R. 1106).
    If it is necessary to locate new livestock
    facilities on such areas, special construction and
    supplementary measures
    (concrete floors,
    impermeable
    holding ponds,
    etc.)
    shall be used to prevent water
    pollution
    (R. 94,
    107)
    (c)
    Protection of Livestock Management Facilities and Livestock
    Waste-Handling Facilities
    (1)
    In existing livestock feedlots, proper precautions
    will be required to divert outside surface water from
    entering the feedlot, and where the feedlot runoff is
    not tributary to agricultural land,
    to store the runoff.
    The manner in which this can be accomplished may be
    through the construction of dikes, or similar manners
    of diversion.
    Such diversions decrease the volume of
    surface waters which enter the feedlot and permit the
    operator to minimize the volume of waste which is
    tributary to agricultural land or which has to be
    collected,
    stored, transported, and spread.
    (2)
    These Regulations require that new livestock
    facilities divert outside surface water.
    In addition,
    they require that a holding pond be provided which
    is
    capable of storing 12 inches of feedlot runoff from
    earthen areas and 15 inches from concrete areas un-
    less the operator has justifiable reasons
    for showing
    that
    a lesser storage volume is necessary or that no
    storage
    is necessary due to the runoff being tributary
    to agricultural land.
    These amounts
    (12 inches and 15
    inches) were determined on the basis that they would
    provide approximately six months of storage capacity
    in a year of average rainfall.
    These design criteria
    have successfully been used in Illinois by the Soil
    Conservation Service for approximately
    3 years. This
    amount of storage capacity is necessary, because dur—
    14—449
    —22—
    ing certain periods of the year it may not be
    possible for the operator to adequately dispose
    of his wastes.
    The federal guidelines for feedlots
    require that sufficient capacity must be provided
    by 1977 to handle all process waste water
    (e.g.,
    wash water from a milking parlor), if any,
    plus the
    precipitation for a 10-year 24—hour rain—storm, and
    by 1983,
    for a 25—year 24-hour storm.
    These require-
    ments have been included in this Regulation.
    A 25-
    year 24-hour rain—storm in various parts of Illinois
    ranges from approximately 4.5 to 5.8 inches.
    (d) Handling and Storage of Livestock Waste
    Rule 104(d)
    sets forth requirements which are intended to
    make sure that livestock waste is handled and stored in a
    manner that will protect our water resources.
    There is an
    obvious hazard in permitting rainfall to penetrate manure
    stacks and then directly enter ground or surface waters or
    endanger a water supply well.
    These Regulations are in-
    tended to prevent such occurrences. They are also intended
    to ensure that manure storage facilities are built in a
    manner to prevent escape of the contents.
    Rule 104 (d)
    (3) (B)
    was clarified to indicate that holding ponds must be im-
    permeable or so sealed as to prevent water pollution
    (R.l029,
    1105)
    (e) Field Application of Livestock Waste
    Farmers expressed concern about the lack of specificity in
    this Rule and the possibility that arbitrary application
    guidelines would be developed without opportunity to review
    them
    (R.
    529,
    604,
    628,
    662,
    70~4, 1014,
    1040,
    1072,
    1094,
    and 1099).
    The Agency plans to adopt guidelines establish-
    ing the maximum quantities
    of livestock waste which may be
    applied to various soil types under different conditions.
    These guidelines will be made freely available to owners
    and operators of feedlots,
    as specified in Rule 105.
    The
    Agency will carefully review the state of the art and con-
    sult knowledgeable agricultural and ecological experts
    before adopting these guidelines
    (R.
    490).
    Some important principles underlying the proper field
    application of livestock wastes were discussed previously
    in this Opinion in the sections concerning “Properties of
    Livestock Wastes”
    and “Nitrogen Transformations and Move-
    ment in Soils.”
    More details are given in Exhibit 55,
    “Determining Application Rates of Livestock Wastes to Land”
    by
    Dr. S.R. Aldrich, and Exhibit 56, “Land Disposal Manage-
    ment of Livestock Wastes” by Dr. O.C. Braids, both of whom
    are staff members
    in the University of Illinois Agronomy
    Department.
    Under common farm practice, typical field application rates
    per acre are 10 to 20 tons of manure from large animals and
    one—half those rates for poultry manure.
    14
    —450
    —23—
    Since nitrogen is an essential element in plant nutrition,
    and is also of concern in water pollution,
    it is useful to
    consider rates of nitrogen application in manure in re-
    lation to plant uptake.
    The pounds of nitrogen in the
    harvested portion of various crops are as follows
    (R. 908)
    Crop and yield per acre
    Pounds of nitrogen
    Corn grain,
    150 bu.
    135
    Wheat grain,
    60 bu.
    75
    Soybean grain,
    50 bu.
    200
    Alfalfa hay,
    6 tons
    270
    Soybeans and alfalfa are legumes and through
    symbiotic
    bacteria can obtain much of their nitrogen from the air
    instead of the soil.
    However,
    “research has shown that
    if adequate amounts of inorganic nitrogen are present in
    the soil,
    legumes use this inorganic nitrogen” and little
    nitrogen is provided by the bacteria
    (R.
    908).
    Dr.
    L.F.
    Welch, Professor of Agronomy at the Unviersity of Illinois,
    estimates that no more than 50 percent of the total nitrogen
    is readily available to plants during the first year
    (R.
    910) because of the nitrogen transformations in soils that
    were discussed previously in this Opinion.
    If average
    beef cattle manure
    (one ton contains about 12 pounds of
    nitrogen)
    is applied for corn and 50 percent of the nitrogen
    is available during the first year,
    it would require 22.5
    tons of manure to supply the 135 pounds of nitrogen in 150
    bushels of corn grain, plus more manure to provide nitrogen
    in the corn forage.
    Gaseous losses of ammonia and
    denitrification would further increase the amounts of
    manure needed to supply nitrogen for this corn before there
    was surplus nitrogen which could be
    leached.
    It is clear
    that the potential for nitrogen leaching is less with high
    crop yields than with low crop yields and with no crop
    growth.
    Likewise, the greater the amount of nitrogen re-
    moved in harvested plants, the greater is the rate of
    manure application that would be environmentally satisfactory.
    Some livestock operations with very large numbers or with
    relatively small acreages on which to apply livestock wastes
    are interested in inôreasing manure application rates up to
    the maximum rate that is environmentally satisfactory.
    In
    Exhibit 55,
    Dr.
    S.R. Aldrich gives much information on
    effects of high manure application rates.
    Dr.
    Aldrich’s
    summary states that
    “The amount of nitrogen that can be in-
    troduced into the soil annually without substantial buildup
    in NO3 is probably in the range of 150 to
    250 pounds
    (per
    acre).
    If one assumes that the average ton of large—animal
    manure contains 10 pounds of nitrogen and that
    25 percent is
    lost through all channels, the calculated annual rate of
    manure application is
    20 to
    33 tons.
    If the assumed loss
    is
    50 percent, the maximum annual application is
    30 to
    50 tons.
    Single applications might reasonably be two or three times
    the average of yearly applications.
    Sites that maximize
    denitrification
    --
    poorly drained, fine-textured soils
    ——
    14—451
    —24—
    will tolerate heavier rates than well—drained, coarse-
    textured soils.
    Techniques for increasing denitrification
    may become practical.”
    It is obvious that many technical factors must be consider-
    ed in order to develop satisfactory guidelines for field
    application of livestock waste under the wide range of
    conditions that occur in Illinois.
    105 ADOPTION OF DESIGN AND MAINTENANCE CRITERIA
    Rule 105 requires the Agency to set forth publicly those
    criteria which are utilized in evaluating permit applications.
    Among those criteria will be manure application rates as re-
    ferred to in Rule 104(e).
    Permit applicants are entitled to
    know the procedures by which the Agency determines whether or
    not a proposed facility will meet the requirements of the Act
    and these Regulations.
    In order to make sure that those
    directly involved receive adequate notice of any major changes
    in requirements, the Agency shall follow the notification pro-
    cedures specified in Rule 105(b).
    106 INSPECTIONS
    AND
    DISEASE PREVENTION
    Maintaining animal health is one of
    the greatest problems in
    raising livestock.
    There was lengthy and vigorous debate con-
    cerning the original language in the proposed Regulation versus
    an amendment proposed by the Agency to the Board on December 17,
    1973
    (R.
    128-132).
    The words
    “as approved by the owner or
    operator, or his duly authorized agent” caused the Agency con-
    cern.
    “The Agency is willing to follow the sanitary measures
    practiced by the operator of the facility, or normally used or
    prescribed sanitary precautions used by veterinarians.
    However,
    we do not want to be placed in the position of being legally
    refused the right to inspect the facility due to unreasonable
    sanitary precautions which the operator could prescribe under
    the existing language.
    Due to the wide variation of disease
    prevention equipment or clothing which nay be used by various
    operations,
    the Agency feels that these should be provided by
    the owner or operator”
    (R.
    131).
    Farmers and agriculturists repeatedly emphasized the livestock
    health hazard of an inspector traveling from one facility to
    another, and especially visiting unannounced during a very
    contagious disease outbreak
    (such as transmissible gastroenter—
    itis)
    which could be avoided by prior contact and suitable sched-
    uling with the operator
    (R.
    141,
    180,
    214,,
    223,
    237,
    239,
    397,
    408,
    451,
    464,
    466,
    598,
    617,
    672,
    757,
    1031,
    1062, and 1095).
    Several farmers stated that when they have
    a disease outbreak
    that requires the help of
    a veterinarian, they often take a sick
    animal to him rather than have him visit
    ‘t~heirfarm in order
    to avoid the possibility of
    a veterinariai~’scarrying a disease
    to their farm.
    A veterinarian,
    Dr.
    A. Bottorf, supported the expressed con-
    cern of the farmers,
    and also recognized, that the Agency may
    have difficulty
    in meeting some sanitary precautions specified
    14—452
    —25—
    by individual farmers
    (R.
    134).
    Dr.
    Al Leman,
    a University
    of Illinois veterinarian, suggested a six—point program for
    Agency inspectors
    “to minimize the possibility of transmitting
    costly diseases and to avoid accusations that may be surround-
    ing this transmission”
    (R.
    557).
    This suggested program includ-
    ed inspector training, visiting only one livestock enterprise
    per day, parking and notification of farmer, coveralls and
    boots, order of inspection, and cleanup prior to departure.
    The Agency responded (Exhibit
    64)
    to
    Dr. Leman’s suggestions
    and accepted them but with two modifications.
    With respect to
    Dr.
    Leman’s second suggestion, the Agency stated that it
    “cannot promise that only one feedlot will be visited on any
    given day.
    Scheduling might not permit it.
    But the Agency will
    direct field personnel to avoid visiting more than one feedlot
    of the same species, except in a case of emergency.”
    With
    respect to Dr. Leman’s fourth suggestion, the Agency indicated
    that they proposed to provide boots and disinfection equipment
    for their feedlot inspectors, but not disposable coveralls.
    Mr. L.D. Hudson of the Agency explained their policy concerning
    the administration of these Regulations and their training pro-
    gram for feedlot inspectors
    (R. 534-541).
    Compromise language was finally proposed
    (R.
    569) which
    eliminated the phrase that was most objectionable to the
    Agency and retained health safeguards which are so important
    to farmers.
    This compromise language is incorporated into
    Rule 106.
    201 NPDES Permits
    These Regulations require that large feedlots must obtain
    NPDES Permits,
    as specified in Rule 202,
    and also smaller
    feedlots which are threatening to cause or causing pollution,
    as specified in Rule 203.
    It
    is not wise to use Illinois
    resources to require more permits than are necessary to
    control pollution through the provisions
    in Rules 202 and 203.
    Paper work associated with permit applications and possible
    exposure to civil sanctions under these Regulations may unduly
    deter small livestock operations
    from continuing production.
    The Board does not believe that there will be significant envi-
    ronmental injury if smaller feedlots which are not causi
    .g
    problems are exempt from the permit requirements.
    202 PERMITS REQUIRED FOR LARGE OPERATORS
    Rule 202 sets forth the numerical limits above which NPDES
    Permits are required.
    These limits are identical to those
    presently required by federal regulations.
    They apply to
    both new and existing feedlots.
    203 PERMIT PROCEDURES FOR OTHER OPERATORS
    Rule 203 authorizes
    the Agency to make a determination
    (for
    livestock operations
    in which there are 1,000 to 100 animal
    units) that
    a particular facility may be causing a violation
    of the Act or applicable regulations.
    In such
    a case the
    Agency is authorized
    to notify the operator that he is re-
    quired to apply for a permit.
    The terms of the permit will be
    established after taking into consideration the factors listed
    in Rule 203, and the applicant will be granted
    a permit with
    a
    14—453
    compliance schedule.
    For livestock operations in which there are less than 100
    animal units,
    an NPDES Permit is not required unless the
    Board determines that it
    is a significant polluter.
    Since
    the economic implications of these Regulations are greatest
    on small producers and the volume of waste per producer is
    small, the Board believes that they should be spared costs
    beyond what
    is necessary to control pollution.
    204 APPLICATION
    -
    CONTENTS
    Rule 204 sets forth the kind of information which the Agency
    will require in order to issue an NPDES Permit for a feedlot.
    The Agency expects to use the federal forms as part of its
    permit application, but does intend to request additional in-
    formation when necessary.
    205 APPLICATIONS
    -
    REGISTERED OR CERTIFIED
    Rule 205 provides that the permit applications shall be sent
    by registered or certified mail,
    This rule is strictly for
    the protection of the applicant.
    206 APPLICATIONS
    -
    TIME TO APPLY
    Rule 206 makes provision for adoption by the State of any
    permits issued by the USEPA before approval of the State
    program, and for use by the State of applications that may
    be filed with the tJSEPA during that period of time.
    Insofar
    as
    is possible, there should be no duplication of effort be-
    cause of the change within Illinois from a federal to State
    program.
    The requirement that applications for permit renewals
    be filed 180 days before expiration
    of an NPDES Permit is
    parallel to the requirement in the FWPCA.
    The Agency will
    notify the applicant 60 days prior to the time the renewal
    application must be submitted.
    207 APPLICATIONS
    -
    FILING AND FINAL ACTION BY AGENCY
    Rule 207(a) provides that a person required to obtain an
    NPDES Permit for his facility must apply at least 180 days
    in advance of the date the facility is to commence operation
    minus the number of days of available manure storage time.
    The provision in Rule
    207(b) governing the signature require-
    ments
    is identical to the federal provision.
    208 STANDARDS OF ISSUANCE
    Rule 208 requires that the applicant show that his proposed
    facility will be in compliance with the applicable law and
    will produce consistently satisfactory results.
    No construction
    permit is required in these Regulations, but operators should
    check their plans with the Agency before construction begins to
    insure that the completed facility will achieve adequate
    pollution control to meet operating permit requirements.
    Such
    checking should avoid the possibility of constructing a
    14
    —454
    -27-
    facility for which an operating permit could not be obtained.
    209 DURATION OF PERMITS
    (a) Almost all bankers, farm managers, and farmers testified
    vigorously that, because of credit and amortization con-
    siderations,
    the NPDES Permits should be for periods
    longer than five years
    (R.
    213,
    243,
    505,
    530,
    617, 668,
    705,
    754,
    897, 947,
    1063,
    and 1071).
    The Agency explained
    that this permit period
    is consistent with federal regula-
    tions, and that in order for Illinois to participate in
    the N.PDES program we must meet certain federal standards,
    one of which
    is that no permit shall be issued for periods
    to exceed five years
    (R.
    671).
    (b) However,
    a provision in the FWPCA Section
    306(d) states
    that a new source,
    the construction of which
    is commenced
    after the date of the enactment of the federal Act,
    shall
    not be required to meet stricter federal “standards of
    performance”
    for a period of time which corresponds to
    either ten years or the period of depreciation or amor-
    tization of the facility, whichever period ends first.
    This provision is incorporated into these Regulations so
    that operators will be alerted to the fact that they are
    protected from having to meet a moving target,
    at least
    to this extent.
    Reference is made to Section 167
    (depreciation and amortiza-
    tion)
    and Section 169
    (pollution abatement equipment)
    of
    the Internal Revenue Code.
    Mr. Mike MeCreery, Illinois
    Agricultural Association, explained that if a person follows
    normal depreciation tables,
    he can have ten—year protection
    from a more stringent federal “standard of performance”
    according to Section 167
    (R. 776-779).
    However,
    if one
    takes rapid write-off on certified pollution abatement
    equipment
    (which is
    a tax advantage that
    is provided for in
    Section
    169)
    ,
    he does not have protection from the ten—
    year more stringent federal “standard of performance.”
    One cannot have both rapid write-off and ten-year protection.
    Another factor is involved in that one cannot get investment
    credit under rapid write—off.
    It
    is clear that individuals
    should investigate income tax considerations in relation to
    protection from more stringent federal “standards of per-
    formance.”
    210 ISSUANCE
    AND
    CONDITIONS
    OF PERMITS
    (a)
    The same NPDES Permit procedures that are used in Subpart A
    of Chapter
    3, Water Pollution Regulations,
    are also used
    in administering these Chapter
    5 Regulations.
    (b)
    This Rule permits
    the Agency to impose special conditions
    where they may be required to protect the environment.
    211 APPEALS FROM CONDITIONS
    IN PERMITS
    Rule 211 provides for challenge of conditions which the
    applicant may believe to be unjustified.
    It is consistent
    with parallel provisions
    in other chapters of the Board’s
    regulations.
    14—455
    —28—
    212 DEFENSES
    Rule
    212 sets forth the defenses available to an operator
    who is in compliance with his NPDES Permit.
    Compliance with
    a permit under state law should provide a defense to the
    same extent that it does under federal law, and these
    Regulations so provide.
    213 AUTHORITY TO MODIFY OR TERMINATE PERMITS
    Rule 213 sets forth the bases for terminating or modifying
    permits as required by the FWPCA and the Act.
    Once a permit
    is issued, termination or modification should be
    as a result
    of
    a hearing before the Board in order to preserve the rights
    of the permit holder.
    301 FISH AND AQUATIC
    ANIMAL
    PRODUCTION FACILITIES
    Rule 301 authorizes the Agency to require and to issue NPDES
    Permits, where they are required by USEPA regulations,
    to fish
    farms and similar operations.
    The Agency must possess that
    authority in order to have a complete NPDES program which can
    secure federal approval,, but it knows of no fish operations
    in the State of a size which will require an NPDES Permit.
    302 IRRIGATION ACTIVITIES
    Rule 302 authorizes the Agency to require and to issue NPDES
    Permits, where they are required by USEPA regulations,
    to
    irrigation return flow discharges.
    Again, this
    is an
    authority which the Agency must possess in order to have a
    complete NPDES program which can secure federal approval, but
    very few,
    if any, permits are expected to be issued for
    irrigation return flows under this Rule.
    401 COMPLIANCE DATES
    Existing sources not required to obtain an NPDES Permit shall
    comply with the general provisions of Part I by December 31,
    1976.
    This
    is in response to the testimony received in the
    hearings which indicated that a reasonable period of time
    is
    necessary to make decisions with respect to continuation of
    operation and compliance with the program.
    This period of
    time is adequate, even for the beef industry,
    to use up feed
    inventories and sell livestock on a favorably priced market.
    This also provides adequate time to install any livestock
    waste-management facilities that may be needed to bring facil-
    ities into compliance.
    All new facilities, whether required to secure NPDES Permits or
    not, will be required to meet Part
    I general standards when
    they begin operation.
    Existing facilities requiring NPDES Permits will have to meet
    Part I standards as of the compliance dates listed in the
    NPDES Permit for the facility.
    The deadline dates which may
    be allowed for existing facilities
    are: July
    1,
    1977,
    for con—
    14
    —456
    —29—
    trolling runoff equivalent to the 10-year 24—hour
    storrti;
    and, July
    1,
    1983,
    for controlling runoff. equivalent to
    the 25—year 24—hour storm.
    However,
    if these criteria can
    be met at an earlier date,
    that date shall be used in the
    compliance schedule.
    New facilities which require NPDES Permits must provide for
    control of runoff from a 25—year 24—hour storm at the time
    operation commences.
    402 SEVERABILITY
    This
    is
    a standard severability clause which specifies that
    a determination invalidating one provision in these Regulations
    does not affect the validity of other provisions of the
    Regulations.
    It
    is consistent with parallel provisions
    in
    other chapters of the Board’s regulations.
    I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was
    a
    pted on the
    ~
    day of ~
    ,
    1974, by
    a vote of
    _____
    to
    p
    Christan L. ~ett
    14—457

    Back to top