ANIMAL WASTE MANAGEMENT ISSUES:
A FEDERAL PERSPECTIVE

Ira H. Linville
Regional Agriculture Coordinator
Environmental Protection Agency
Atlanta, GA 30365

The animal production industry is rapidly growing in the southeast, particularly in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4. Broiler and swine production has grown by about 7 percent annually in the last few years. That growth in this region and other parts of the country has raised the public awareness and has reached the news media agenda. The top five broiler producing states in order are Arkansas, Georgia, Alabama, North Carolina, and Mississippi. North Carolina is first in turkey production and second in hog production nationally. The following table shows growth in the region.

BROILER AND SWINE PRODUCTION - EPA Region 4

Source: National Agriculture Statistical Service and National Pork Board

Increased production and the concentration of production facilities have caused serious concerns about air, surface and groundwater pollution. Odor complaints are very common. In 1988, just 7 percent of the nation's hogs were raised in factory farms. Today, 17 percent are, and projections are that number will double in five years. The concerns are not new. A l989 summary of state nonpoint source water quality assessments conducted under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) revealed that over one-third of all water impairments attributed to agricultural pollution were caused by animal waste.

Waste disposal practices used by many animal production operations cause water quality degradation. Most operations collect manure from animal confinement areas in solid or liquid form and apply it to farmland as a nutrient for crops or simply as a disposal method. With heavy rainfalls, huge waste lagoons sometimes overflow into waters of the United States causing severe environmental impairments.

There are two definitions that must be understood when discussing animal feeding operations: Animal Feeding Operation and Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO). Both definitions can be found in the "Guide Manual On NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) Regulations For Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations" released in February 1996 and the Code of Federal Regulations Part 40 Section 122.23(b)(1). The Guide does not contain any new rules or regulations. The purpose of this guidance manual is to clarify the areas of confusion for permitting authorities and to suggest appropriate interpretations of the regulations. The NPDES program regulates the discharge of pollutants from point sources to waters of the United States as defined in the Clean Water Act.

An Animal Feeding Operation must stable, confine, and feed or maintain animals for a total of 45 days or more in any 12-month period and not sustain crops, vegetation forage growth, or post-harvest residues in the normal growing season over any portion of the facility.

A Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation is an animal feeding operation and also has more than 1,000 animal units [40 CFR 122, Appendix B(a)]; has between 301 and 1,000 animal units and that may or does discharge by one of the methods covered by the regulations at 40 CFR 122, Appendix B(b); or, has been designated a CAFO by the permitting authority on a case-by-case basis [40 CFR 122.23(c)].

The animal unit numbers can be expressed according to the type of animals confined. The number of animal units can be calculated using the formula as follows:

• number of slaughter and feeder cattle multiplied by 1.0;

• number of mature dairy cattle multiplied by 1.4;

• number of swine weighing over 25 kilograms (55 pounds) multiplied by 0.4;

• number of sheep multiplied by 0.1;

• number of horses multiplied by 2.0.

• No conversion factor exists for poultry operations but the cumulative number of animals is used and the waste management system is considered.

FEEDLOTS WITH MORE THAN 1,000 ANIMAL UNITS

If the number of any one species exceeds the corresponding number indicated below, or the cumulative number of animal units exceeds 1,000, the animal feeding operation is a CAFO and should be covered by an NPDES permit. Discharges to waters of the United States from animal feeding operations with more than 1,000 animal units are point source discharges regardless of the manner of conveyance. A key point is that there is no potential to discharge through any means of conveyance, i.e., a no-discharge system, from these operations. The CAFO threshold numbers are more than the following:

• 1,000 slaughter and feeder cattle,

• 700 mature dairy cattle (whether milked or dry),

• 2,500 swine each weighing over 25 kilograms (55 pounds),

• 500 horses,

• 10,000 sheep or lambs,

• 55,000 turkeys,

• 100,000 laying hens or broilers (with a continuous flow watering system),

• 30,000 laying hens or broilers (with a liquid manure system)⁽¹⁾, or

• 5,000 ducks.

FEEDLOTS WITH 301-1,000 ANIMAL UNITS

There are two criteria that animal feeding operations with 301-1,000 animal units must meet before a permit is required for a discharge to waters of the United States: size and method of discharge. If both of these criteria are met, the feedlot is a CAFO and must have an NPDES permit for discharge to waters of the United States.

First, if the number of any one species exceeds the corresponding number indicated below, or the cumulative number of animal units exceeds 300, the facility meets the size criterion:

• 300 slaughter and feeder cattle,

• 200 hundred mature dairy cattle (whether milked or dry),

• 750 swine each weighing over 25 kilograms (55 pounds),

• 150 horses,

• 3,000 sheep or lambs,

• 16,500 turkeys,

• 30,000 laying hens or broilers (with continual flow watering system),

• 9,000 laying hens or broilers (with a liquid manure system), or

• 1,500 ducks.

Second, animal feeding operations meet the "method of discharge" criterion if the operation discharges pollutants:

• into waters of the United States through a manmade ditch, flushing system, or similar manmade device: or,

• directly into waters of the United States that originate outside of and pass over, across, or through the facility or otherwise come into direct contact with the animals confined in the operation.

CASE-BY-CASE DESIGNATION

Three types of operations can be designated as CAFOs on a case-by-case basis if determined to be actual or potential significant contributors of pollutants to waters of the United States:

• An animal feeding operation with 300 to 1,000 animal units that does not meet the discharge criterion [40 CFR 122.23(c)(1)]. In other words, these operations may be designated regardless of the manner of conveyance of the discharge.

• An animal feeding operation with less than 300 animal units if the facility meets the "method of discharge" criterion, namely that the operation actually or potentially discharges pollutants [40 CFR 122.23(c)(2)].

• An animal feeding operation that raises animals other than the species identified in the regulations. Examples are llama ranches and mink farms. Such operations may be designated regardless of the manner of conveyance of the discharge.

No operation can be designated a CAFO on a case-by-case basis until the permitting authority has conducted an on-site inspection of the facility, regardless of the size of the operation or the type of animals confined. This is a site-specific inspection considering relevant factors for making a determination.

Who issues the permit? For some states, EPA is the issuing authority. In EPA Region 4, the NPDES permit program is delegated to individual states. The State Water Quality Agency is usually the permitting authority. The EPA does approve the state program and that program must be as stringent as federal regulations for the NPDES program. Many of them are more stringent than federal requirements.

An animal feeding operation may be designated a CAFO by the permitting authority. Primary consideration for designation is the potential or actual discharge of pollutants. The facility, however, is not obligated to have an NPDES permit unless there is an actual discharge. An unpermitted feedlot designated as a CAFO would be subject to enforcement under the CWA only if it actually discharges. Once such a discharge occurs, the unpermitted facility remains in violation until a permit is obtained.

NPDES permits for CAFOs must contain technology-based effluent limitations for fecal coliform and biological oxygen-demanding substances. Those limitations consider the best available technology economically achievable (BAT) and Best Conventional Pollution Control Technology (BCT). Best professional judgment (BPJ) may be considered. The Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments guidance document may be referenced for BAT and BCT for feedlots. The permit conditions must conform to the minimum federal requirements. However, state law may make them more stringent.

The effluent limitation allows no discharges except when chronic or catastrophic storm events cause an overflow from a facility designed, constructed, and operated to hold process-generated waste water plus runoff from a 25-year, 24-hour or greater storm event. Chronic conditions may be where there is heavier than normal rainfall and wet weather conditions for an extended period of time. The 25-year, 24-hour provision is for storm events. In practical terms, the effluent limitations guidelines mean that these facilities must have adequate retention structures that are properly built and operated. The management of the entire waste handling system must be considered. It is a "systems approach."

The system should include a waste management plan designed for the operation. Components include waste water collection and retention facilities, proper land application or other disposal sites, a maintenance plan, and where appropriate, a nutrient management plan. The purpose is to prevent pollutants from reaching waters of the United States. For discharge systems, a monitoring plan is required. Every permit must include the upset and bypass provisions. Bypasses are prohibited without permission of the permitting authority and the system must be in compliance with all other permit conditions.

How are we doing? Let me share some national facts with you. These are based on data searches from EPA permit tracking systems, the Agricultural Census, and other sources. The search was done early in 1996.

Nationally, there are 650,000 farms and ranches with livestock of which 450,000 have confined feeding operations. There are 6,600 CAFOs with 1,000 or more animal units representing about 35 percent of the confined animals. Only 1,880 CAFO permits have been issued. Of that number, only 760 permits were current as of December 1995. Only 100 NPDES permits were issued in 1994-1995. On the average, less than 100 CAFO NPDES permits are inspected annually. The record is not really too good. Of course, many states issue permits under state programs and those may not get counted in the total number of permits for animal feeding operations. North Carolina, for example, has inspected all facilities following the lagoon breaches in 1995.

Congress and the public are both asking how the EPA is managing the animal waste management situation. The EPA does have several enforcement options including authorities of the Clean Water Act, Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, Safe Drinking Water Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and to a limited extent, the Clean Air Act. Implementation of those authorities is being considered. In fact, Region 4 is in the midst of an Office of Inspector General audit at the current time.

A national strategy is being prepared that will determine compliance status, bring violators back in compliance, and develop compliance assurance actions to be taken. Enforcement is a key part of that strategy. The focus will be on actions that will provide the most environmental and human health benefits.

Animal waste management has become a very important issue in Region 4. The Region is developing a regional strategy that will more adequately address the issue. The regional strategy, when completed, will consider both enforcement and non-enforcement options. The regional strategy will be completed during 1997. It is premature to discuss specifics at this time.

There are some concepts the EPA will consider as the strategy is developed. The strategy will support the River Basin or Watershed Approach to planning and issuing permits. Assimilative capacity of streams in the watershed basins will be considered. This is consistent with the community-based environmental protection concept of EPA and the states. State program implementation and enforcement activities will be included in oversight activities. Grant flexibility will be sought through Partnership Performance Agreements with the states to allow the states to direct resources to critical concerns.

It is possible to address the animal waste management issues and concerns. It will take a cooperative partnership of federal, state, and local agencies, the animal production industry, producers, and concerned citizens to be effective. It is a challenge but all of us must face up to it. And I think we will.

1. EPA recognizes that "continuous watering system" refers to an outdated technology, and the threshold in the CAFO regulations that is based on this technology would rarely apply. Therefore, the threshold based on "liquid manure system" would be the more commonly applied threshold for poultry operations.

Back to Title Page