May, 1999
Vol. 4, No. 2

New Swine Regulations Available for Public Comment

The Georgia Environmental Protection Division has proposed to modify the rules and regulations
for water quality control (Rule 391-3-6-.20) to create the "Swine Feeding Operation Permit
Requirements". The stated purpose for these rules is to provide for the uniform procedures and
practices to be followed relating to the application for and the issuance or revocation of permits
for swine feeding operations. This includes flexibility to require any

operation to comply with stricter requirements in order to be protective of the environment.

The complete rules are linked to the AWARE site
. The rule requires permits for operations greater than 300 Animal Units (AU) (750 hogs, 55 lbs or more) and considers adjoining operations under common ownership to be permitted as one. It establishes "Permit by Rule" for operations from 301 to 1000 AU and requires individual permits for operations from 1000 to3000 AU and above 3000 AU.

Requirements for300 to 1000 AU farms:

     no discharge to surface water;
     submit registration form by October 31, 2000;
     submit Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan (CNMP) by October 31, 2000 (It
     defines CNMP as a plan which identifies actions or priorities that will be followed to meet
     clearly defined nutrient management goals at an agricultural operation. CNMPs should
     address, at a minimum, feed management, manure handling and storage, land application of
     manure, land management, record keeping, and management of other utilization options.
     They include emergency response planning and a closure plan.);
     educate and certify operator by October 31, 2001;
     implement CNMP plan by October 31, 2002;
     new operations must have waste storage and disposal systems that have been designed and
     constructed in accordance with NRCS guidance.;
     new operations located within significant ground water recharge areas which fall within must
     be provided with either a compacted clay or synthetic liner such that the vertical hydraulic
     conductivity does not exceed 5 x 10-7 cm/sec;
     new barns, new lagoons, and new waste disposal systems for existing swine feeding
     operations that are expanding production so that they will have 301 to 1000 AU shall not
     be located within a 100-year flood plain.

Requirements for 1001 to 3000 (AU 2500 to 7500 swine):

     all of the above plus individual NPDES permits are required by October 31, 2000 and
     must be submitted 180 days in advance;
     permit will require public notice of application;
     At least one up-gradient and at least two down-gradient ground water monitoring wells
     shall be installed for the spray irrigation fields and one down gradient ground water
     monitoring well shall be installed for each lagoon or series of lagoons. Nitrates in the ground
     water at the operation's property line shall not exceed 10 mg/1;
     if it is determined that an existing lagoon is creating a ground water contamination problem,
     it must be closed or repaired;
     the permit will contain specific requirements for monitoring the storage lagoon effluent to be
     land applied, and for the ground water monitoring wells. This will usually consist of
     semiannual monitoring of the effluent for 5-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand, Total
     Suspended Solids, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, Ammonia Nitrogen, Nitrate Nitrogen, and pH,
     as well as semiannual monitoring of the wells for specific conductivity, Nitrate, pH and
     depth to ground water;
     proper closure of lagoons within eighteen months of removing an operation from
     production;
     new operations will be required to maintain a minimum of 2 feet of freeboard in the lagoons
     at all times and the following buffers:

-300 feet between wetted area and any residence or places of public assembly under separate
ownership, or 100 feet if subsurface injected,

-150 feet between (land application) wetted area and property lines, or 50 feet if subsurface
injected,

-100 feet between wetted area and water wells,

-100 feet between lagoons or barns or wetted area and drainage ditches, surface water bodies, or
wetlands,

-700 feet between lagoons or barns and any occupied residence off of the applicant's property,

-700 feet between lagoons or barns and any public use area, church, picnic area, outdoor
recreational facility or park, historic property, or child care center,

-150 feet between lagoons or barns and any property boundary, and

-500 feet between lagoons or barns and any wells that supply drinking water.
 
 

Requirements for operations above 3,000 AU include all of the above plus:

     The permit may require periodic monitoring of any wet weather ditches or perennial
     streams;
     New or expanding operations are subject to much more rigous public notification
     requirements including public meetings and written notification to all property owners within
     one mile;
     The system must be designed to handle the runoff from a 50-year, 24-hour storm event;
     Lagoons shall be provided with a synthetic liner such that the vertical hydraulic conductivity
     does not exceed 5 x 10-7 cm/sec.
     The following buffers shall be maintained:

-750 feet between disposal area and any residence or places of public assembly,

-200 feet between disposal area and property lines,

-200 feet between disposal area and water wells,

-150 feet between disposal area and drainage ditches, surface water bodies, or wetlands,

-1,750 feet between lagoons or barns and any occupied residence,

-1,750 feet between lagoons or barns and any public use area, parks, or child care center,

-1,750 feet between lagoons or barns and any property boundary,

-1,750 feet between lagoons or barns and any drinking water wells, and

-2,640 feet between lagoons or barns and waters of the State.

     The owner or operator shall provide the evidence of financial responsibility to cover the
     cost of closure plus ten percent of the initial capital costs for construction of the entire
     facility and $100,000 to cover the costs of any fines that may be imposed.
     Lagoons and waste storage facilities must be provided with airtight covers and air pollution
     control devices using best available technology.
     Lagoon effluent must be incorporated using subsurface injection at a depth not less than 6
     inches.
     penalties for failure to comply can reach $100,000 per day for each day that effluent is
     discharged from a lagoon and $25,000 per day for runoff from fields.

There are also several other provisions. One of these states that the Director of the Department of
Natural Resources may require any operation to eliminate lagoons or spray fields if alternative
technologies become feasible. Another allows the Director to deny bad actors. While the details
for the "Operator Training and Certification Requirements" have not been established, I would
expect Extension and the AWARE team to take a lead these activities.

While much effort has gone into these rules, there is considerable room for improvement. To
provide the public an opportunity to comment upon and provide input into the proposed rule
amendment, a hearing will be held at 10:00 a.m. on June 7, 1999, at the Environmental Protection
Division Training Center, Atlanta Tradeport, 4244 International Parkway, Suite 114,

Atlanta, Georgia. At the public hearing, anyone can comment, either orally or in writing. To insure
their consideration, written comments should be received on or before the date of the public
hearing and should be addressed to: Jeffrey H. Larson, Manager, Permitting, Compliance and
Enforcement Program, 4220 International Parkway, Suite 101, Atlanta, Georgia 30354.

Another strategy that may be even more effective is to comment directly to the DNR Board
members who will consider the proposed rule amendment for adoption at its meeting on June 10,
1999. The addresses for each of the Board members are given at http://www.ganet.org/dnr/.
Whatever approach you use, it is important to get your input and those in your community heard.
Often, the people that get affected most are the ones that have the least say and only you can
prevent this.
 
 

AWARE team Response to Proposed Regulations

Almost twenty research and extension faculty members of the AWARE team recently met for a
day to form a joint opinion and response to the proposed swine regulations. On many issues there
was much discussion, however, we were able to come to a unanimous decision in several areas.
On March 30, we sent a letter to the Environmental Protection Division and the DNR Board
outlining exactly where we thought changes should be made. The letter we sent had twelve
signatures representing more than 100 years of research and extension experience in the area of
animal waste management and all agreed on the recommendations in the letter. These are changes
that the academic community thinks would be appropriate. While we realize that this is a political
and social issue as well, we felt that regulation and environmental protection should be based on
science. A copy of the letter is linked to the home page.

The specific changes that we recommended included:

     Regulations should apply to all CAFO's using wet manure systems(lagoon systems), not
     just swine operations. Environmental risks associated with dry systems are different from
     wet systems, and therefore should be regulated differently.
     There is no scientific evidence that large operations cause more pollution than smaller
     operations, therefore we recommend that our categories be consistent with national
     guidelines. We do recognize that there is greater environmental impact if a large lagoon
     fails, therefore we recommend that a maximum lagoon size be established instead of
     controlling the number of animals on the farm.
     We agree that lagoons and buildings should not be placed in a 100-year flood plain
     because of the danger of inundation and lagoon failure, however there is no good reason
     for excluding this productive farm land from the spray application field if it is done properly.
     To protect water quality in streams near spray fields, a 100-ft vegetated buffer strip will
     effectively remove most nutrients from any runoff water provided that waste has been
     applied according to a well-designed nutrient management plan.
     We would like to encourage farmers to apply waste on a large number of acres, perhaps
     alternating applications of manure and commercial fertilizer to balance nutrient levels. To
     encourage this practice, the cost of monitoring spray fields should be minimized by only
     requiring monitoring wells around spray application fields on a case-by-case basis at the
     discretion of the EPD.
     The effluent should be tested as part of the nutrient management plan, but we see no need
     for further required monitoring.
     It seems unfair to require an operator to "maintain" a buffer between his facilities and
     neighboring structures. Neighbors can build structures for the express purpose of causing
     the operator to fall out of compliance. The only thing the operator can control is the buffer
     between his operation and his property line or water body, therefore requirements for
     setbacks should be measured to property lines, not residences or other structures.
     The provision that allows the requirements to change at any time a conversion to new
     technology is deemed "economically achievable" by the Director will make financing of any
     facility almost impossible. No wise person will invest in an operation when the rules are
     seen as likely to change at any time, making the operation unprofitable. Certainly new
     technologies should be encouraged if found to be economical, but the rules should not be
     changed after investments are made unless it is determined that the operator has made bad
     faith decisions or is significantly impacting public health. Our opinion is that alternative
     technologies that are cost effective do not currently exist although we and others are
     working to develop them.
     We recognize the importance of proper lagoon design and believe that the NRCS lagoon
     standards can insure that losses to the groundwater are minimized. We believe that clay
     liners provide equivalent or superior protection to synthetic materials, provided that they
     are properly installed. Proper installation can be assured by requiring a contractor or P.E.
     signature. There are benefits to covering lagoons and using or flaring the generated gases,
     however, lagoon covers are very costly (up to $50,000/acre of lagoon) and should only be
     required within 10 miles of coastal estuaries.
 
 

The New Feedlot Strategy: Mixed Opinions

Vice President Gore announced earlier this month a new strategy for limiting nonpoint source
pollution from farms. Under the plan, manure and runoff from large farms will be placed under
stricter control. An estimated 15,000-20,000 additional livestock operations will be required to
obtain permits. States are urged to regulate the impact of manure on groundwater and air as well
as surface waters. The most contentious aspect of the plan is a provision that requires states to
hold major meat producers and contracted growers jointly responsible for the manure that their
animals produce. This provision could have significant consequences for the poultry industry.

A brief scan of press releases and news reports demonstrate that environmentalists, agribusiness,
and farmers all have diverse opinions about the strategy. Environmental organizations expressed
concern that the storage of untreated waste in lagoons was not addressed. The Natural Resources
Defense Council called on the Administration to impose a moratorium on new and expanding
factory farms until standards are upgraded. Ken Midkiff of Sierra Club lamented that no
moratorium was issued, the strategy made no recognition of the difficulties with the "lagoon and
spray" technology, and odor and emission problems will not be addressed expeditiously.

On the other hand, Dean Kleckner, President of the American Farm Bureau Federation, stated
that "Rather than throwing a costly regulatory blanket over the countryside, we believe the
administration should use incentives to target those areas where challenges are known to
exist^We question whether EPA's true motive might be little more than controlling land use." The
National Cattlemen's Beef Association said that government agencies "have made improvements
to their animal feeding operation strategy," but they still have significant concerns about one-size
fits all regulations.

Interestingly, the National Chicken Council and the National Pork Producers Council were
pleased with the agreement. The National Chicken Council stated that they were pleased the plan
would give the smallest poultry and livestock operations leeway to develop their manure
management plans. The National Pork Producers Council found that many of the ideas contained
in the strategy mirror commitments pork producers made following the National Environmental
Dialogue on Pork Production. Copies of the Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding
Operations can be obtained by calling USDA at (202) 720-5974 or EPA at (202) 260-7786.
Electronic versions are available on the Web Site at: http://www.epa.gov/owm/afo.htm or on the
AWARE webpage under policy.

Integrators responsible for Litter in Maryland

The May 3, 1999 edition of Poultry Times reports that State regulators in Maryland took the first
step toward making poultry integrators responsible for the waste their animals produce. Plans call
for adding a section to poultry processing plants' pollution control permits that would require them
to show that chickens slaughtered there were grown on farms where manure was utilized in an
environmentally sound manner. In March, the federal government unveiled regulations that gave
states the option of holding large companies liable under the Clean Water Act for tainted runoff
produced by the animals they process. Apparently, Maryland will be the first State to test these
waters. This will be an interesting situation to watch as it has some far reaching impacts.
 
 

From Litter to Fertilizer

Perdue Farms, Inc., the big Maryland-based poultry company, is becoming a partner in a plant
that will process manure into fertilizer. The plant should be operating by the end of 1999, and will
turn out 95,000 tons of fertilizer from about 120,000 tons of manure yearly.

After a site is selected, Perdue and its partner, AgriRecycle, Inc., of Springfield, Mo., will begin
collecting manure and offering an as-yet undetermined payment to farmers. The plant will handle
about half of the manure produced by Perdue growers. Arrangements will be made with other
farmers on a first-come basis. Much of the fertilizer will likely be sent to other areas.

The Delmarva Peninsula depends heavily on poultry and associated business. Maryland and
Virginia already have regulations on how much nutrient can be applied to cropland, and Delaware
is working on new policies. Before Perdue announced its fertilizer plant venture, Maryland started
a pilot program to redistribute 20% of the nutrients from poultry litter. Maryland's part of the
peninsula produces about 375,000 tons of litter annually. Maryland also has established a
waste-technology fund that drew 35 proposals for using excess chicken manure.

It would be nice to see similar things happening in Georgia, wouldn't it.
 
 

A Georgia Composting Facility Opens

Hall County announces the opening of a composting facility. They will accept waxed corrugated
cardboard [tipping fee $25/ton], chicken litter [free tipping], and yard trimmings [$18/ton]. The
cardboard will be shredded and mixed with the litter, then composted in wind-rows on the top of
the closed Allen Creek landfill. Three months later, they will sell it [$20/ton loaded] as compost.
The yard trimmings will be shredded & sold [$5/ton loaded] as mulch. It is expected that as much
as 7,000 tons per year of waxed corrugated card board will be diverted from the landfill. Please
contact Robert J. Hitch at 770-535-5728 if you would like to receive more information.
 
 

Fertilizers Over-applied

The Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) recently reported survey results that also show
excessive nitrogen application. A 1997 survey in the St. Peter, MN Wellhead Protection Area
showed that nitrogen applications exceeded University of Minnesota recommendations by an
average of 53 lbs/acre. Most farmers reported that, instead of university recommendations, they
followed the recommendations of fertilizer dealers or crop consultants. MDA reports that farmers
could save an average of $10/acre in the cost of production.

To address the environmental and economic costs of excessive fertilizer application, some
insurance companies are offering new insurance programs designed to encourage farmers to
adopt proper environmental practices. The Agricultural Conservation Innovation Center (ACIC)
is behind the development of these new insurance programs. Four programs have been
developed. One of the programs would insure farmers for any loss in crop yields due to following
university recommendations. For more information about the program, call IGF Insurance in Des
Moines, Iowa, at (515) 633-1000. (From: Minnesota River Weekly Update, February 8, 1999)
 
 

National Ag Center May be Helpful

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with the support of the Department of
Agriculture (USDA), has developed a national Agriculture Compliance Assistance Center (Ag
Center) to provide a base for "one-stop shopping" for the agriculture community -- one place for
the development of comprehensive, easy-to-understand information about approaches to
compliance that are both environmentally protective and agriculturally sound. The Ag Center, a
program offered by EPA's Office of Compliance, seeks to increase compliance by helping the
agricultural community identify flexible, common sense ways to comply with the many
environmental requirements that affect their business. The Ag Center will also provide information
related to agriculture to help reduce pollution and increase use of the latest pollution prevention
technologies. Initial efforts will focus on providing information on EPA's requirements, with
crosslinks to other information sources. They also offer a listserve that will send you notices about
items that are posted on the news page of the Center's web site. See
http://www.epa.gov/oeca/ag/ or the link at the AWARE page for more information.
 
 

Farm or Factory? -- Landmark Court Decision

Most pork producers have never heard of EnviroPork near Larimore, N.D. But in the next few
months, the court decision in a suit against that operation may have far-flung influences on the
industry. In a situation that now is all too familiar to hog producers across the country, neighbors
filed suit over water and air quality concerns, and farmer-investors in this fledgling production
co-op with 5,000 sows have been forced to defend themselves in court. The familiar battle has
taken an unexpected turn in this case. It has become a question of whether the operation falls
under the regulatory purview of a farm or a large-scale factory, subject to more stringent solid
waste disposal laws. According to the court's initial ruling, "EnviroPork is not a 'farming operation'
as contemplated in the administrative regulation, but a pig factory." District Judge Bruce Bohlman
continues: "There is no family farm here, no cultivation of the land, nor any other [characteristics]
of a farm. It is an industrial enterprise." This could have far reaching impacts as many agricultural
exemptions would not apply to industrial enterprises. (From: Top Producer magazine /
April-May 1999)
 
 

Another Bion NMS Up and Running in North Carolina

Bion Environmental Technologies, Inc. added another swine nutrient management system (Bion
NMS(TM)) to its operations. Eason Farms in North Carolina began filling its hog houses toward
the end of March. The Bion NMS immediately started operations with the introduction of hogs.
The Eason Farm is designed to hold over 3,900 finishing hogs, having the potential to produce
more than 3,240 cubic yards of BionSoil(TM) per year. The Eason Farm is number four of Bion's
fully operational swine systems in North Carolina and it will be running at full capacity in
approximately three weeks. Bion has two additional North Carolina hog systems in the permitting
and construction phases, which will soon be in operations. (From: PorKnet)

More Fines

For the second time in six weeks, a dairy in southern Oregon's Klamath County has been issued a
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency complaint seeking civil penalties because agency
inspectors discovered manure-laden dairy wastes entering drainage ditches that connect to the
Lost River. The new complaint is based upon observations made by EPA inspectors during a visit
to the dairy last November. Bub Loiselle, manager of the water compliance unit at EPA's
Northwest regional headquarters in Seattle said. "EPA is conducting unannounced inspections
throughout the state, and the indications are that we will be taking similar actions at dairies in a
number of other places in Oregon." Loiselle explained that inspections are part of ongoing efforts
by EPA and the Oregon Department of Agriculture to ensure that dairies and other concentrated
animal feeding operations (CAFOs) are in compliance with the federal Clean Water Act. The
complaint to dairy proposes a penalty totaling $22,000 for two violations of the no-discharge
requirement, said Loiselle. The dairy has 20 days from the date they received the complaint to
challenge the penalty and to contest the EPA allegations. Another dairy in the are received an
EPA complaint proposing a total penalty of $33,000 for three alleged violations of the Clean
Water Act less than a month earlier.
 
 

County agents note: AWARE news to go electronic

At our last team meeting, we decided to send electronic copies of the newsletter out to all county
agents in the future. Rather than receiving a hard copy, we will send agents an e-mail with the
newsletters attached. All of the newsletters are also available at our web site. Our hard copy
mailing list will still be maintained and those of you outside of Extension will continue to receive
hard copies of the newsletter. If any agents would like to get the hard copy version, please
contact Cathy Felton (feltonc@bae.uga.edu) with your address.
 

Events

May 26, 1999. Deep South Poultry Conference, Tifton, GA. Contact: Keith Bramwell
912-386-3418.

June 7-9, 1999. Workshop on Atmospheric Nitrogen Compounds, Chapel Hill, NC. Contact
Viney Aneja 919-515-7808.

June 8-9, 1999. Animal Waste Utilization Roundtable sponsored by US DOE-FETC,
Morgantown West Virginia. Contact: Suellen Van Ooteghem 304-285-5443.

June 9-12, 1999. National Workshop on Constructed Wetlands and BMP's for Nutrient
Reduction and Coastal Water Protection, New Orleans, LA. Contact: Frank Humenik
919-515-6767.

June 9-11, 1999. Compost Facility Operators Training Workshop, Athens, GA.

Contact: Mark Risse, 706-542-9067, mrisse@bae.uga.edu
 
 

June 11, 1999. Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Society Annual Meeting, Rome GA.
Contact: Jean Steiner: jsteiner@arches.uga.edu.

August 3-5, 1999. Grazing Management Training School, Mount Berry, GA.
Contact: Judy Wilson, 706-238-7882

August 18-19, 1999. Stream Restoration and Protection Conference, Asheville, NC
Contact: terry_pollard@ncsu.edu, 919-515-3723
 
 

August 30- September 2, 1999. USGS Conference on the Effects of Animal Feeding
Operations on the Environment, Fort Collins, CO. Contact: Dana Kolpin 319-358-3614

December 15-17, 1999. Conservation 2000, New Orleans, LA.
Contact: CTIC@CTIC.purdue.edu 765-494-9555.

October 9-11, 2000. The Eighth International Symposium on Animal, Agricultural, and Food
Processing Wastes, Des Moines, Iowa. Contact: James Converse 608-262-1106

Co-editors:
Mark Risse
Extension Ag Engineer

Glen Harris
Extension Agronomist
 
 

To get on the mailing list to receive copies of the AWARE news please contact Cathy Felton at
706-542-3086  . Out of state subscribers will be requested to make a one time donation of $25 to cover the costs of postage and handling.