United States
               Environmental Protection
               Agency
               Enforcement and
               Compliance Assurance
               (2221-A)
EPA310-R-00-002
September 2000
  &EPA
Profile of the Agricultural
Livestock Production
Industry
SECTOR
NOTEBOOKS
                    EPA Office of Compliance Sector Notebook Project

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry	Sector Notebook Project

                                                           EPA/310-R-00-002
                 EPA Office of Compliance Sector Notebook Project

               Profile of the Agricultural Livestock
                         Production Industry

                               September 2000
                       U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                               Ariel Rios Building
                          1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
                             Washington, DC 20460

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry	General Information
GENERAL INFORMATION

This report is one in a series of volumes published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to provide information of general interest regarding environmental issues associated with
specific industrial sectors. The documents were developed under contract by GeoLogics Corporation
(Alexandria, VA), Abt Associates (Cambridge, MA), Science Applications International Corporation
(McLean, VA), and Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc. (McLean, VA). A listing of available Sector
Notebooks is included on the following page.

Obtaining copies:

Electronic versions of all sector notebooks  are available via Internet on the Enviro$en$e World Wide
Web at www.epa.gov/oeca/sector.  Enviro$en$e is a free, public, environmental exchange system
operated by EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance and Office of Research and
Development. The Network  allows regulators, the regulated community, technical experts, and the
general public to share information regarding: pollution prevention and innovative technologies;
environmental enforcement and compliance  assistance; laws,  executive orders, regulations, and
policies; points of contact for services and equipment; and other related topics. The Network
welcomes receipt of environmental messages, information, and data from any public or private person
or organization. Direct technical questions to the "Feedback" button on the bottom of the web page.

Purchase printed bound copies from the Government Printing Office (GPO) by consulting the
order form at the back of this document or order via the Internet by visiting the on-line GPO Sales
Product Catalog at http://orders.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/sale/prf/prf.html. Search using the
exact title of the document "Profile of the XXXX Industry" or simply "Sector Notebook." When
ordering, use the  GPO document number found on the order  form at the back of this document.

Complimentary volumes are available to certain groups or subscribers, including public and
academic libraries; federal, state, tribal, and local governments; and the media from EPA's National
Service  Center for Environmental Publications at (800) 490-9198.  When ordering, use the EPA
publication number found on the following page.

The Sector Notebooks were developed by the EPA's Office of Compliance. Direct general
questions about the Sector Notebook Project to:

        Seth Heminway, Coordinator, Sector Notebook Project
        US EPA Office of Compliance
        Ariel Rios Building
        1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
        Washington, DC 20460
        (202) 564-7017

For further information, and for answers to questions pertaining to these documents, please refer to
the contact names listed on the following page.
Sector Notebook Project                         i                                 September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry
                                                                        General Information
                         SECTOR NOTEBOOK CONTACTS

Questions and comments regarding the individual documents should be directed to the specialists listed
below.  See the Notebook web page at: www.epa.gov/oeca/sector for the  most recent titles
and staff contacts.
EPA Publication
     Number
EPA/310-R-95-001.
EPA/310-R-95-002.
EPA/310-R-95-003.
EPA/310-R-95-004.
EPA/310-R-95-005.
EPA/310-R-95-006.
EPA/310-R-95-007.
EPA/310-R-95-008.
EPA/310-R-95-009.
EPA/310-R-95-010.
EPA/310-R-95-011.
EPA/310-R-95-012.
EPA/310-R-95-013.
EPA/310-R-95-014.
EPA/310-R-95-015.
EPA/310-R-95-016.
EPA/310-R-95-017.
EPA/310-R-95-018.
EPA/310-R-97-001.
EPA/310-R-97-002.
EPA/310-R-97-003.
EPA/310-R-97-004.
EPA/310-R-97-005.
EPA/310-R-97-006.
EPA/310-R-97-007.
EPA/310-
EPA/310-
EPA/310-
EPA/310.
EPA/310-
EPA/310-
EPA/310-
•R-97-008.
R-97-009.
•R-97-010.
-R-98-001.
•R-99-006.
•R-00-001.
•R-00-002.
EPA/310-R-00-003.
                   Industry
 Profile of the Dry Cleaning Industry
 Profile of the Electronics and Computer Industry*
 Profile of the Wood Furniture and Fixtures Industry
 Profile of the Inorganic Chemical Industry*
 Profile of the Iron and Steel Industry
 Profile of the Lumber and Wood Products Industry
 Profile of the Fabricated Metal Products Industry*
 Profile of the Metal Mining Industry
 Profile of the Motor Vehicle Assembly Industry
 Profile of the Nonferrous Metals Industry
 Profile of the Non-Fuel, Non-Metal Mining Industry
 Profile of the Organic Chemical Industry *
 Profile of the Petroleum Refining Industry
 Profile of the Printing Industry
 Profile of the Pulp and Paper Industry
 Profile of the Rubber and Plastic Industry
 Profile of the Stone, Clay, Glass, and Concrete Ind.
 Profile of the Transportation Equipment Cleaning Ind.
 Profile of the Air Transportation Industry
 Profile of the Ground Transportation Industry
 Profile of the Water Transportation Industry
 Profile of the Metal Casting Industry
 Profile of the Pharmaceuticals Industry
 Profile of the Plastic Resin and Man-made Fiber Ind.
 Profile of the Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation
Industry
 Profile of the Shipbuilding and Repair Industry
 Profile of the Textile Industry
 Sector Notebook Data Refresh-1997 * *
 Profile of the Aerospace Industry
 Profile of the Oil and Gas Extraction Industry
 Profile of the Agricultural Crop  Production Industry
 Profile of the Agricultural Livestock Production
Industry
 Profile of the Agricultural Chemical, Pesticide and
Fertilizer Industry
Contact
Joyce Chandler
Steve Hoover
Bob Marshall
Walter DeRieux
Maria Malave
Seth Heminway
Scott Thro we
Maria Malave
Anthony Raia
Debbie Thomas
Rob Lischinsky
Walter DeRieux
Tom Ripp
Ginger Gotliffe
Seth Heminway

Scott Thro we
Virginia Lathrop
Virginia Lathrop
Virginia Lathrop
Virginia Lathrop
Steve Hoover
Emily Chow
Sally Sasnett
Phone
202-564-7073
202-564-7007
202-564-7021
202-564-7067
202-564-7027
202-564-7017
202-564-7013
202-564-5027
202-564-6045
202-564-5041
202-564-2628
202-564-7067
202-564-7003
202-564-7072
202-564-7017
202-564-2310
202-564-7013
202-564-7057
202-564-7057
202-564-7057
202-564-7057
202-564-7007
202-564-7071
202-564-7074
Rafael Sanchez
Anthony Raia

Seth Heminway
Anthony Raia
Dan Chadwick
Ginah Mortensen
202-564-
202-564-
202-564-
202-564-
202-564-
202-564-
913-551-
•7028
•6045
•2310
•7017
•6045
•7054
•5211
                                                                      Ginah Mortensen  913-551-5211
                                                                      Michelle Yaras
                                                                               202-564-4153
                                       Government Series
EPA/310-R-99-001.   Profile of Local Government Operations
                                                                               202-564-2310
*   Spanish translations available.
* *  This document revises compliance, enforcement, and toxic release inventory data for all profiles published
    in 1995.
Sector Notebook Project
                                                                           September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry	Table of Contents

                            TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF EXHIBITS	v

LIST OF ACRONYMS 	  vi

I. INTRODUCTION TO SECTOR NOTEBOOK PROJECT	   1
   LA.    Summary of the Sector Notebook Project 	   1
   IB.    Additional Information	   2

II. INTRODUCTION TO THE AGRICULTURAL LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION INDUSTRY
   U.A.   General Overview of Agricultural Establishments	   3
   U.B.   Characterization of the Livestock Production Industry	   7
          II.B.l. Cattle Ranching andFarming  	  10
          II.B.2. Hog and Pig Farming	  11
          II.B.3. Poultry and Egg Production	  11
          II.B.4. Sheep and Goat Farming	  13
          II.B.5. Animal Aquaculture	  13
          U.B.6. Other Animal Production	  14
   II.C.   Animal Feeding Operations  	   15
   U.D.   Geographic Distribution and Economic Trends	   22

III. SUMMARY OF OPERATIONS, IMPACTS, AND POLLUTION PREVENTION
   OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE AGRICULTURAL LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION
   INDUSTRY 	  25
   ffi. A.   Feed Storage, Loading, and Unloading	  31
   UI.B.   Housing	  33
   III.C.   Animal Nutrition and Health	  36
   HID.   Managing Animal Waste	  43
          HJ.D.1. Collecting & Transporting Animal Wastes 	  45
          m.D.2. Storing & Treating Animal Wastes  	  49
          m.D.3. Utilizing Animal Wastes	  53
   in.E.   Other Management Issues  	  56
   III.F.   Pest Control	  60
   IJI.G.   Maintaining and Repairing Agricultural Machinery and Vehicles	  63
   IJI.H.   Fuel Use and Fueling	  66

IV. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE FEDERAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS	  69
   FV.A.   General Description of Major Statutes 	  69
   FV.B.   Industry-Specific Requirements for the Agricultural Livestock
          Production Industry	  87
   IV.C.   Proposed and Pending Regulations	  117
Sector Notebook Project                    iii                           September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry	Table of Contents

V. COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT HISTORY	  119
   V.A.  Background  	  119
   V.B.  Compliance and Enforcement Profile Description	  119
   V.C.  Livestock Production Industry Compliance History	  123

VI. REVIEW OF MAJOR LEGAL ACTIONS AND COMPLIANCE/ENFORCEMENT
   STRATEGIES	  133

VII. COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACTIVITIES AND INITIATIVES	  137
   VILA. Sector-Related Environmental Programs and Activities	  137
   VTI.B. EPA Programs and Activities	  139
   VII.C. USDA Programs and Activities  	  143
   VH.D. Other Voluntary Initiatives 	  148
   VTI.E. Summary of Trade Associations	  149

VIE. CONTACTS/RESOURCE MATERIALS/BIBLIOGRAPHY	  151
Sector Notebook Project                    iv                           September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry	Table of Contents

                                 LIST OF EXHIBITS

1.      Agricultural Land Use in the U.S	   4
2.      Types of Cropland	   5
3.      Acreage of Agricultural Establishments in the U.S	   6
4.      Agricultural Establishments by Value of Sales	   6
5.      Ownership Status of Agricultural Establishments in the U.S	   7
6.      1997 NAICS Descriptions for Animal Production (NAICS 112)  	   8
7.      Number of Livestock-Producing Establishments by NAICS Code  	   9
8.      Average Establishment Size 	   9
9.      Percentage of Establishments & Sales by Type 	  10
10.    Percentage of Establishments & Sales in the Cattle Ranching and Farming Industry ...  11
11.    Percent of Poultry and Egg Production Establishments by Type	  12
12.    Total Sales of Poultry and Egg Production Establishments by Type	  12
13.    Percent of Establishments & Sales for the Other Animal Production Industry  	  15
14.    Multiplication Factors to Calculate Animal Units	  17
15.    Threshold Number of Animals (by Animal Type) to Meet the Definition of a C AFO
       with More Than 1,000 AUs	  19
16.    Example Factors for Case-by-Case CAFO Designation	  21
17.    Livestock Production Activities and Potential Pollution Outputs	  30
18.    Manure Production by Animal Type	  44
19.    Five-Year Enforcement and Compliance Summary for the Livestock Industry	  124
20.    Five-Year Enforcement and Compliance Summary for Selected Industries	  127
21.    One-Year Enforcement and Compliance Summary for Selected Industries	  128
22.    Five-Year Inspection and Enforcement Summary by Statute for
       Selected Industries	  129
23.    One-Year Inspection and Enforcement Summary by Statute for
       Selected Industries	  130
Sector Notebook Project                       v                             September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry
                            List of Acronyms
                              LIST OF ACRONYMS

ACM        Asbestos-Containing Material
AFS         AIRS Facility Subsystem (CAA database)
AFO         Animal Feeding Operation
ANSI        American National Standards Institute
APO         Administrative Penalty Order
AU          Animal Unit
BIF          Boiler and Industrial Furnace
BMP         Best Management Practice
BOD         Biochemical Oxygen Demand
CAA         Clean Air Act
CAAA       Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
CAFO       Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation
CCAP       Climate Change Action Plan
CERCLA     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CERCLIS     CERCLA Information System (CERCLA database)
CESQG      Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator
CFC         Chlorofluorocarbon
CFO         Conservation Farm Option
CFR         Code of Federal Regulations
CNMP       Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans
COD         Chemical Oxygen Demand
CP A         Conservation Priority Areas
CREP        Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program
CRP         Conservation Reserve Program
CWA        Clean Water Act
CWAP       Clean Water Action Plan
CZARA      Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments
DOT         United States Department of Transportation
DUN         Dun and Bradstreet
EBI          Environmental Benefits Index
EMS         Environmental Management Standards
EPA         United States Environmental Protection Agency
EPCRA      Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
EQIP         Environmental Quality Incentives Program
ESPP         Endangered Species Protection Program
FDA         United States Food and Drug Administration
FFDCA      Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
FIFRA       Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
FINDS       Facility Indexing System
FQPA       Food Quality Protection Act
FSA         Farm Services Agency
Sector Notebook Project
VI
September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry
                            List of Acronyms
                       LIST OF ACRONYMS (CONTINUED)

FWS         Fish and Wildlife Service
FY          Fiscal Year
HAP         Hazardous Air Pollutant (CAA)
HSWA       Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
HUD         United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
IDEA        Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis
IPM         Integrated Pest Management
ISO         International Organization for Standardization
LDR         Land Disposal Restrictions (RCRA)
LEPC        Local Emergency Planning Committee
LQG         Large Quantity Generator
MACT       Maximum Achievable Control Technology (CAA)
MCL         Maximum Contaminant Level
MCLG       Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
MSDS       Material Safety Data Sheet
NAAQS      National Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAA)
NAICS       North American Industrial Classification System
NASS       National Agricultural Statistics Service
NCBD       National Compliance Database, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
             Substances
NCP         National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
NESHAP     National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NICE        National Industrial Competitiveness Through Energy, Environment and Economics
NO A        Notice of Arrival
NOAA       National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency
NPDES      National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (CWA)
NPL         National Priorities List
NFS         Nonpoint Source Management Program
NRC         National Response Center
NRCS       Natural Resources Conservation Service
NSPS        New Source Performance Standards (CAA)
OECA       Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OMB        Office of Management and Budget
OSHA       Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PCB         Polychlorinated Biphenyl
PCS         Permit Compliance System
PESP        Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program
PMN        Premanufacture Notice
POTW       Publicly Owned Treatment Works
PWS         Public Water System
RCRA       Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Sector Notebook Project
vu
September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                                    List of Acronyms

                       LIST OF ACRONYMS (CONTINUED)

RCRIS       RCRA Information System (RCRA database)
RLEP        Ruminant Livestock Efficiency Program
RMP         Risk Management Plan
RQ          Reportable Quantity
RUP         Restricted Use Pesticides
SARA       Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SDWA       Safe Drinking Water Act
SEP         Supplemental Environmental Project
SERC        State Emergency Response Commission
SIC         Standard Industrial Classification
SIP          State Implementation Plan
SPCC        Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure
SQG         Small Quantity Generator
TMDL       Total Maximum Daily Load
TRI         Toxic Release Inventory
TRIS         Toxic Release Inventory System
TSCA       Toxic Substances Control Act
TSD         Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
TSS         Total Suspended Solids
UIC         Underground Injection Control (SDWA)
USD A       U. S. Department of Agriculture
UST         Underground Storage Tank (RCRA)
WHIP        Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program
WPS         Worker Protection Standards
WRP         Wetlands Reserve Program
Sector Notebook Project                     viii                            September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry	Introduction


I. INTRODUCTION TO THE SECTOR NOTEBOOK PROJECT

LA.    Summary of the Sector Notebook Project

              Environmental policies based upon comprehensive analysis of air, water and
              land pollution (such as economic sector, and community-based approaches) are
              becoming an important supplement to traditional single-media approaches to
              environmental protection. Environmental regulatory agencies are beginning to
              embrace comprehensive, multi-statute solutions to facility permitting,
              compliance assurance, education/outreach, research, and regulatory
              development issues.  The central concepts driving the new policy direction are
              that pollutant releases to each environmental medium (air, water and land)
              affect each other, and that environmental strategies must actively identify and
              address these interrelationships by designing policies for the "whole" facility.
              One way to achieve a whole facility focus is to design environmental policies
              addressing all media for similar industrial facilities. By doing so,
              environmental concerns that are common to the manufacturing  of similar
              products can be addressed in a comprehensive  manner. Recognition by the
              EPA Office of Compliance of the need to develop the industrial  "sector-based"
              approach led to the creation of this document.

              The Sector Notebook Project was initiated by the Office of Compliance within
              the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) to provide its
              staff and managers with summary information  for eighteen specific industrial
              sectors.  As other EPA offices, states, the regulated community, environmental
              groups, and the public became interested in this project, the scope of the
              original project was expanded. The ability to design comprehensive, common
              sense environmental protection measures for specific industries is dependent on
              knowledge of several interrelated topics. For the purposes of this project,  the
              key elements chosen for inclusion are: general  industry information (economic
              and geographic); a description of industrial processes; pollution  outputs;
              pollution prevention opportunities; federal statutory and regulatory framework;
              compliance history; and a description of partnerships that have been formed
              between regulatory agencies, the regulated community and the  public.

              For any given industry, each topic listed above alone could be the subject of a
              lengthy volume. However,  to produce a manageable document, this project
              focuses on providing summary information for each topic.  This format
              provides the reader with a synopsis of each issue, and references where more
              in-depth information is available. Text within each profile was researched
              from a variety of sources, and was usually condensed from more detailed
              sources pertaining to specific topics.  This approach allows for a wide
              coverage of activities that can be explored further based upon the references
              listed at the end of this profile. As a check on  the information  included, each
              notebook went through an external document review process.  The Office of
Sector Notebook Project                      1                             September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry	Introduction
              Compliance appreciates the efforts of all those that participated in this process
              and enabled us to develop more complete, accurate and up-to-date summaries.

LB.  Additional Information

Providing Comments

              OECA's Office of Compliance plans to periodically review and update
              notebooks and will make these updates available both in hard copy and
              electronically. If you have any comments on the existing notebook, or if you
              would like to provide additional information, please send a hard copy and
              computer disk to the EPA Office of Compliance, Sector Notebook Project, 401
              M St., SW (2223-A), Washington, DC 20460.  Comments can also be sent via
              the web page.

Adapting Notebooks to Particular Needs

              The scope of the industry sector described in this notebook approximates the
              relative national occurrence of facility types within the sector.  In many
              instances,  industries within specific geographic regions or states may have
              unique characteristics that are not fully captured in these profiles.  For this
              reason, the Office of Compliance  encourages state and local environmental
              agencies and other groups to supplement or re-package the information included
              in this notebook to include more specific industrial and regulatory information
              that may be available.  Additionally, interested states may want to supplement
              the "Summary of Applicable Federal Statutes and Regulations" section with
              state and local requirements. Compliance or technical assistance providers
              also may want to develop the "Pollution Prevention" section in more detail.
              Please contact the appropriate specialist listed on the opening page of this
              notebook if your office is interested in assisting us in the further development of
              the information or policies addressed within this volume. If you are interested
              in assisting the development of new notebooks, please contact the Office of
              Compliance at 202-564-2310.
Sector Notebook Project                       2                             September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry
        Introduction & Background
II. INTRODUCTION TO THE AGRICULTURAL LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION
    INDUSTRY

              This section provides background information on the agricultural livestock
              production industry. It presents the types of facilities described within this
              document and defines them in terms of their North American Industrial
              Classification System (NAICS) codes.
              Establishments that produce livestock are
              classified in NAICS code 112 (Animal
              Production). Data for the notebook,
              specifically in this chapter, were
              obtained from the U.S. Department of
              Agriculture (USDA) and the 1997
              Agriculture Census (Ag Census). All
              data are the most recent publicly
              available data for the source cited.
The Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) has replaced the
Standard Industrial Classification
(SIC) system, which was used to
track the flow of goods and services
within the economy, with the
NAICS.  The NAICS, which is
based on similar production
processes to the SIC system, is
being implemented by OMB.
              It should be noted that the data on the
              number of livestock establishments presented in the following sections do not
              represent the number of animal feeding operations (AFOs) or concentrated
              animal feeding operations (CAFOs) in the U.S.  The data simply represent
              numbers of livestock establishments only. Additional information on AFOs and
              CAFOs is presented in  Section II.C.

              Establishments primarily engaged in livestock production are classified in
              subgroups up to six digits in length, based on the total value of sales of
              agricultural products. An establishment would be placed in the group that
              represents 50 percent or more of its total sales.  For example, if 51  percent of
              the total  sales of an establishment are from sales of beef cattle, that
              establishment would first be classified under NAICS code 1121 (Cattle
              Ranching and Farming), then 11211 (Beef cattle  ranching and farming, including
              feedlots), and finally under 112111 (Beef cattle ranching and farming).

II.A.  General Overview of Agricultural Establishments

              This section presents a  general overview of all agricultural establishments to
              provide the reader with background information  regarding the number and
              organization of such establishments and production data. The USD A's National
              Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) defines an agricultural establishment
              (farm) based on production. It defines an agricultural establishment as a place
              which produced or sold, or normally would have produced or sold, $1,000 or
              more of agricultural products during the year. Agricultural products include all
              products grown by establishments under NAICS codes 111  - Crop Production
              and 112 - Animal Production.
Sector Notebook Project
                 September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry	Introduction & Background
              According to the 1997 Ag Census, there were more than 1.9 million farms (i.e.,
              agricultural establishments) in the United States.  Of these, approximately 53
              percent (1,009,487 farms) were classified as NAICS code 112 - Animal
              Production.  The other 47 percent (902,372 farms) were classified as NAICS
              code 111 - Crop Production.  These 1.9 million agricultural establishments
              represent nearly 932 million acres of land, with the average agricultural
              establishment consisting of 487 acres. (Note: 1 acre is approximately the size
              of a football field.) Both of these numbers~932 million acres and 487 acres--
              are smaller than those for 1992, which were 946 million acres and 491 acres,
              respectively.

              A   u    •   T- u-uv i   f ^u          Exhibit 1, Agricultural Land Use
              As shown in Exhibit 1, of the            .           /icwt %  r-      *
              932 million  acres of                    m tht VM'{l997 A8 Census)
              agricultural land, the
              overwhelming majority (89%)                      _
              consists of cropland and                 46%v           "^
              pastureland/rangeland.
                                                     43%
                                                         Cropland
                                                         Pastureland/Rangoland

                                                         Woodland
                                                         Other
Sector Notebook Project                      4                             September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry
                       Introduction & Background
              As presented in Exhibit
              2, the 1997 Ag Census
              describes cropland as:

              •   Harvested cropland
                 -- Includes all
                 acreage from which
                 crops are harvested,
                 such as: (1) corn,
                 wheat, barley, oats,
                 sorghum, soybeans,
                 cotton, and tobacco;
                 (2) wild or tame
                 harvested hay,
                 silage, and green
                 chop; and (3)
                 vegetables. It also
                 includes land in
                 orchards and
                 vineyards; all acres
  Exhibit 2, 'types of Cropland
        (1997 Ag Census)
    72%
                           9%
                      15%
Cropland Harvested
Cropiand Pastured
Other Cropland (cover, crops failed,    summer fallow)
Cropland Itlfe
                 in greenhouses, nurseries, Christmas trees, and sod; and any other acreage
                 from which a crop is harvested even if the crop is considered a partial
                 failure and the yield is very low.

                 Cropland used only for pasture or grazing — Includes land pastured or
                 grazed which could be used for crops without any additional improvement,
                 and land in planted crops that is pastured or grazed before reaching
                 maturity.

                 Cropland used for cover crops -- Includes land used only to grow cover
                 crops for controlling erosion or to be plowed under for improving the soil.

                 Cropland on which all crops failed — Includes:  (1) all land from which a
                 crop failed (except fruit or nuts in an orchard, grove, or vineyard being
                 maintained for production) and no other crop is harvested and which is  not
                 pastured or grazed, and (2) acreage not harvested due to low prices  or
                 labor shortages.

                 Cultivated summer fallow — Includes cropland left unseeded for harvest,
                 and cultivated or treated with herbicides to control weeds and conserve
                 moisture.

                 Idle cropland — Includes any other acreage which could be used for crops
                 without any additional improvement and which is not included in one of the
                 above categories of cropland.
Sector Notebook Project
                                September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry
                                    Introduction & Background
              The 1997 Ag Census describes pastureland and rangeland as land, other than
              cropland or woodland pasture, that is normally used for pasture or grazing.
              This land, sometimes called "meadow" or "prairie," may be composed of
              bunchgrass, shortgrass, buffalo grass, bluestem, bluegrass, switchgrass, desert
              shrubs, sagebrush, mesquite, greasewood, mountain browse, salt brush, cactus,
              juniper, and pinion.  It also can be predominantly covered with brush or
                                             Exhibit 3, Acreage of Agricultural Establishments
                                                      in the U.S. (1997 Ag Census)
              As presented in Exhibit 3,
              approximately 82 percent of
              agricultural establishments
              in 1997 consisted of fewer
              than 500 acres; only 4
              percent consisted of 2,000
              or more acres.
                                          30%
              According to the 1997 Ag
              Census, all agricultural
              establishments combined
              to produce approximately
              $197 billion worth of
              agricultural products.

  Exhibit 4.  Agricultural Establishments
     b? Value of Sales (1997 Ac Census)
                               26%
                                                   31%'
                         1 - 49 acres
                         50- 173 acres
                         180 -499 acres
                                            21%
                                        500 - 98i acres

                                        1000-1399 acres
                                        2000 acrsa or inert
                       The market value of the agricultural
                       products sold was split almost evenly
                       between crop production, including
                       nursery and greenhouse crops (49.6%)
                       and livestock production (50.4%).

                       As shown in Exhibit 4, approximately
                       73 percent of all agricultural
                       establishments produced less than
                       $50,000 worth of agricultural products.
                             23%
           15%
     <
          .

     $10,000 -
         -
1 $100,000
I $SOO,.000 or more
Sector Notebook Project
                                              September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry	Introduction & Background
              In addition to tracking the number of agricultural establishments and the value
              of products sold, the Ag Census tracks and identifies other characteristics of
              agricultural establishments, such as ownership and organization.  Exhibit 5
              presents a breakdown of the ownership status of agricultural establishments in
              the U.S. The Ag Census basically  identifies the ownership status of
              agricultural establishments by one  of three categories:

              •      Full ownership, in
                       , . , r 11               Exhibit 5. Ownership Status of Agricultural
                     which full owners                ..   , . .   *   .   ,  .
                          ,    ,  ,,  ,   ,              Kstahlishinents in the L.S.
                     operate only the land                    .nun* /<
                      ^        J                            )1W? Agl.cnsust
                     they own.

              •      Partial ownership, in              m
-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry
Introduction & Background
              This notebook follows the structure provided by the 1997 Ag Census, which
              classifies all of these livestock production operations within NAICS code 112.

               Exhibit 6.  1997 NAICS Descriptions for Animal Production (NAICS 112)
Type of
Establishment
Cade ranching
and farming,
dairy farming
Hog and pig
farming
Poultry and egg
production
Sheep and goat
farming
Animal
aquaculture
Other animal
production
NAICS
Code
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1129
SIC
Code
0211,
0212,
0241
0213
0251,
0252,
0253,
0254,
0259
0214
0273,
0279,
0919,
0921
0271,
0272,
0279
Establishments primarily engaged in raising cattle,
milking dairy cattle, or feeding cattle for fattening.
Establishments primarily engaged in raising hogs and
pigs. These establishments may include farming
activities, such as breeding, farrowing, and the raising
of weaning pigs, feeder pigs, or market size hogs.
Establishments primarily engaged in breeding,
hatching, and raising poultry for meat or egg
production.
Establishments primarily engaged in raising sheep,
lambs, and goats, or feeding lambs for fattening.
Establishments primarily engaged in the farm raising of
finfish, shellfish, or any other kind of animal
aquaculture. These establishments use some form of
intervention in the rearing process to enhance
production, such as holding in captivity, regular
stocking, feeding, and protecting from predators.
Establishments primarily engaged in raising animals
and insects for sale or product production (except
those listed above), including bees, horses and other
equines, rabbits and other fur-bearing animals and
associated products (e.g., honey). Also includes
those establishments for which no one animal or
animal family represents one-half of production.
Sector Notebook Project
         September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry
                  Introduction & Background
              According to the 1997 Ag
              Census, there were 1,009,487
              establishments producing the
              six categories of livestock
              referenced above (see Exhibit
              7). Of the 1,009,487 livestock
              producing establishments,
              approximately 78 percent were
              classified as cattle ranching and
              farming.

              All livestock producing
              establishments combined
              covered nearly 530 million
              acres of land.
              Based on the number of
              establishments and total acreage
              for each NAICS code, Exhibit 8
              presents the average size of
              each type of establishment.
Exhibit 7, Number of Livestock-Producing
     Establishments by NAICS Code
              (1997,\gCensus}
            Cattle Ranching and Farming
            Hog and Pig Farming

            Poultry and Egg Production

            Sheep and Goat Farming
            Animal Aquaculture
                                                       |  Other Animal Production
              Exhibit 8. Average Establishment Size (1997 Ag Census)
                         Average Establishment Size (in acres)
                              Cattle Ran thing and Farm ing
                              Hog and Pig Farming
                              Poultry and Egg Production
                              Sheep and Goat Farming
                              AnimalAquaculturfr
                              GtherAnimal Production
Sector Notebook Project
                           September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry
                     Introduction & Background
              The six types of livestock producing establishments defined above accounted
              for approximately $99 billion worth of products sold in 1997.  Exhibit 9
              presents the distribution of total sales among the six types of establishments
              compared to the total number of establishments. EPA's Preliminary Data
              Summary Feedlots Point Source Category Study released in January  1999
              contains additional detailed information for beef cattle, dairy, pork,  sheep, and
              poultry operations.
                      Exhibit 9. Percentage of Establishments & Sales by Type
                                         (1997 Ag Census)
Type of Livestock Establishment
Cattle Ranching and Farming
Hog and Pig Farming
Poultry and Egg Production
Sheep and Goat Farming
Animal Aquaculture
Other Animal Production
Percent of Establishments
78
4
4
3
<1
11
Percent of
Sales
60
14
23
<1
<1
2
n.B.l. Cattle Ranching and Farming
              Cattle ranching and farming establishments (NAICS code 1121) comprise the
              overwhelming majority of all establishments categorized under NAICS code
              112 by accounting for 77.9 percent of all livestock establishments.  In the U.S.
              in 1997, there were 785,672 cattle ranching and farming establishments. Of
              these, approximately 89 percent (699,650 establishments) were categorized as
              beef cattle establishments, including feedlots. The remaining 11 percent
              (86,022 establishments) were categorized as dairy cattle  and milk production
              facilities. In 1997, the average beef cattle establishment was nearly 635 acres
              in size.  Establishments raising dairy cattle and producing milk averaged
              approximately 356 acres.

              Cattle ranching and farming establishments accounted for approximately $60
              billion of sales in 1997. Of that $60 billion,  beef cattle establishments had
              sales of approximately $38 billion (approximately 65 percent of sales), while
              dairy cattle and milk production accounted for the remaining $21 billion.
              Exhibit 10 compares the percentage sales of each subcategory to the percentage
              of establishments.
Sector Notebook Project
10
September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry
                     Introduction & Background
                         Exhibit 10. Percentage of Establishments & Sales
                   in the Cattle Ranching and Farming Industry (1997 Ag Census)
Type of Establishment
Beef cattle ranch and farming,
including feedlots
Dairy cattle and milk production
Percent of Establishments
89
11
Percent of
Sales
65
35
II.B.2. Hog and Pig Farming
              Hog and pig fanning (NAICS code 1122) comprised approximately 4.6 percent
              (46,353 establishments) of all the livestock producing establishments in the
              U.S. in 1997.  These establishments accounted for nearly $14 billion in total
              sales, or approximately 14 percent of total livestock producing establishment
              sales in 1997.
II.B.3. Poultry and Egg Production
              Poultry and egg production is classified in NAICS code 1123. In 1997, this
              category included 36,944 establishments, or approximately 4 percent of all
              livestock producing establishments in the U.S.  Poultry and egg production is
              divided into 5 subclassifications:

                    Chicken egg production (NAICS code 11231)
                    Broilers and other meat-type chicken production (NAICS code 11232)
                    Turkey production (NAICS code 11233)
                    Poultry hatcheries (NAICS code 11234)
                    Other poultry production, including ducks, emus, geese, ostrich,
                    pheasant, quail, and ratite (NAICS code 11239)

              Exhibit 11 provides a breakdown of the 5 subclassifications by number of
              establishments. Each of these establishments averages approximately 150 acres
              in size.
Sector Notebook Project
11
September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry
                                   Introduction & Background
                               Exhibit 11.  Percent or Poultry and Egg Production
                                           I Istahlishments h_y Type
                                               1199 7 Ag Census)
                                  51%
                                     | OhiiWn FIJIJ P-;i :IM: inn
                                        Broiler* and Ottifir Mea1>1yp*> Chir.fcen Produrtion
                                     I Turkey Production
                                     • Poultry Hatcheries
                                     | Other Poultry Production

               In 1997, the poultry and egg production industry combined for nearly $23
               billion in sales, which accounted for 23 percent of total livestock sales in the
               U.S. Sales of broilers and other meat-type chicken accounted for 54 percent of
               those sales (approximately $12.4 billion).  Exhibit 12 presents the total sales of
               each of the subclassifications of the poultry and egg production industry.

               Exhibit 12. Total Sales of Poultry and Egg Production Establishments
                                       by Type  (1997 Ag Census)
                                                                          J12.4
                     $8     $10
           (ฃ in Billions)
Dthe-r Poultry Production
Poult* Hatcheries
Turkey Production
Broilers and Other Wlsat-tf-peChitken Production
ChiDke-n Egg Production
                                                                                $14
Sector Notebook Project
            12
September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry	Introduction & Background
              The poultry industry has increased its use of contractual agreements because of
              the high number of producers relative to the number of available buyers willing
              to handle raw farm products.  The use of contracts has been noted to affect the
              organizational structure of the poultry industry raising questions about
              ownership responsibility as well as environmental concerns. This is
              particularly true when animals are produced under contracts where the
              contractor (processor or integrator) dictates the terms of the contract and
              controls the amount produced and the production practices used, but the
              contractee (grower) retains responsibility for increased animal waste
              management and disease control often without adequate compensation to meet
              these additional costs. In a 1993 study, USD A showed that almost 90 percent
              of the value of all poultry production is produced under contract, which has
              played a key role in the influence of integrators on the poultry sector.

n.B.4. Sheep and Goat Farming

              Sheep and goat farming (NAICS code 1124) comprised 3 percent of all
              livestock establishments in the U.S. in 1997 and accounted for nearly 4 percent
              of the total acreage of livestock establishments.  Of the 29,938 sheep and goat
              establishments, 21,084 (approximately 70 percent) are sheep farms; the
              remaining 8,854 are goat farms.  The average sheep farm is approximately 830
              acres in size.  Goat farms average approximately 320 acres.

              In 1997, sheep and goat farms combined for $625 million in total sales, which
              is less than 1 percent  of total livestock producing establishment sales and the
              least amount of the six primary NAICS codes.  Sheep accounted for $568
              million in sales (approximately 91 percent) and goat sales accounted for the
              remaining $57 million.

II.B.5. Animal Aquaculture

              Animal aquaculture (NAICS code 1125) is the smallest of the livestock
              producing establishments in terms of number of establishments, with only 3,079
              active establishments in 1997. This accounted for fewer than 1 percent of all
              livestock producing establishments in the U.S.  It also accounted for less than 1
              percent ($800 million) of the 1997 total sales of livestock producing
              establishments.  NAICS subdivides animal aquaculture establishments as
              follows:

              •       Finfish farming and fish hatcheries (NAICS code 112511), which is
                     raising fmfish (e.g., catfish, trout, goldfish, tropical fish, salmon,  and
                     minnows) and/or hatching fish of any kind.

              •       Shellfish farming (NAICS code  112512), which is raising crayfish,
                     shrimp, oysters, clams, and/or mollusks.
Sector Notebook Project                      13                             September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry	Introduction & Background
              •       Other animal aquaculture (NAICS code 112519), which is raising
                     animals other than fmfish and shellfish, including alligators, frogs,
                     and/or turtles.

              While data for each of the specific NAICS subclassifications were not
              available through the 1997 Ag Census, USDA's NASS has identified at least
              955 catfish producing operations.  These operations are located primarily in
              four states-Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.  Similarly, the
              USD A has identified 451 trout operations located in 16 states, but primarily in
              North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Michigan. These trout operations had total
              sales in 1998 of $78.9 million. Both the number of operations and the value of
              total sales  are down from the 1997 totals of 465 and $79.8 million,
              respectively.

II.B.6. Other Animal Production

              Production of other animals (NAICS code 1129) occurred at 107,051
              establishments in 1997, which is approximately 11 percent of all livestock
              producing  establishments in the U.S. These establishments produce a variety of
              other animals including:

              •       Apiculture [bee farming (i.e., raising bees)] (NAICS code 11291)

                     Horse and other equine production, including burros, donkeys,  mules,
                     and ponies (NAICS code 11292)

              •       Fur-bearing animal and rabbit production, including chinchillas, foxes,
                     and mink (NAICS code 11293)

              •       All other animal production, including aviaries, bison/buffalo,
                     cats/dogs, llamas, snakes, and worms (NAICS code 11299)

              These four subclassifications accounted for just more than 2 percent of the total
              sales of livestock producing establishments in 1997. Exhibit 13 provides a
              breakdown of the 4 subclassifications by percent of establishments, as well as
              by percent of sales.
Sector Notebook Project                      14                             September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry
                    Introduction & Background
                       Exhibit 13. Percent of Establishments & Sales for the
                         Other Animal Production Industry (1997 Ag Census)
Establishment Type
Apiculture
Horse and Other Equine
Production
Fur-bearing Animal and Rabbit
Production
All Other Animal Production
Percent of Establishments
4
86
1
9
Percent of Sales
5.9
42.9
4.7
46.5
H.C. Animal Feeding Operations

             Many livestock establishments within NAICS code 112 are defined by EPA as
             either animal feeding operations (AFOs) or concentrated animal feeding
             operations (CAFOs). The primary factor classifying a livestock operation as
             an AFO or CAFO is the confinement of animals in a relatively small area
             devoid of sustaining vegetation. According to the USD A/EPA Unified National
             Strategy for AFOs, "AFOs congregate animals, feed, manure and urine, dead
             animals, and production operations on a small area of land."  This factor
             separates AFOs (and CAFOs) from the pasture and range operations.  The
             number of animals, among other factors, separates the AFOs from the CAFOs.

             EPA is currently collecting and analyzing data on livestock production facilities
             to determine the number of facilities which meet the definition of AFO or
             CAFO.  This will allow the Agency to better understand the universe of the
             regulated community, assist compliance, and as necessary, take enforcement
             action. EPA is currently developing AFO guidance documents and revised
             regulations that address permitting, performance standards, and other issues.
             The following sections provide information on the regulatory definitions of both
             AFOs and CAFOs.

       Animal Feeding Operations

             What is an AFO?
             The term animal feeding operation or AFO is defined in EPA regulations [40
             CFR 122.23(b)(l)] as:

             •      A  lot  or facility where animals have been, are, or will be stabled or
                    confined and fed or maintained for a total of 45 days or more in any 12-
                    month period; AND
Sector Notebook Project
15
September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry	Introduction & Background
              •       Where crops, vegetation, forage growth, or post-harvest residues are
                     not sustained over any portion of the lot or facility in the normal
                     growing season.

              According to EPA1, the first part of this regulatory definition of an AFO states
              that animals must be kept on the lot or facility for a minimum of 45 days. If an
              animal is at a facility for any portion of a day, it is considered to be at the
              facility for a full day. However, this does not mean that the same animals must
              remain on the lot for 45 days; only that some animals are fed or maintained on
              the lot or facility 45 days out of any 12-month period. The 45 days do not have
              to be consecutive,  and the 12-month period does not  have to correspond to the
              calendar year. For example, June 1 to the following  May 31 would constitute a
              12-month period.

              The second part of the regulatory definition of an AFO is meant to distinguish
              facilities that have feedlots (concentrated confinement areas) from those which
              have pasture and grazing land, which are generally not AFOs.  Facilities that
              have feedlots with constructed floors, such as solid concrete or metal slots,
              satisfy this part of the definition. If a facility maintains animals in an area
              without vegetation, including dirt lots, the facility meets this part of the
              definition. Dirt lots with nominal vegetative growth along the edges while
              animals are present or during months when animals are  kept elsewhere are also
              considered by EPA to meet the  second part of the definition.

              The NPDES permit regulations [40 CFR Part 122.23(b)(l)] give the permitting
              authority (EPA or NPDES-authorized States) considerable discretion in
              applying the  AFO  definition. EPA defines the AFO to include the confinement
              area and the  storage and handling areas necessary to  support the operation (e.g.,
              waste storage areas). Grazing and winter feeding of animals in a confined area
              on pasture or range land are not normally considered to meet the AFO
              definition.

              As indicated in the USD A/EPA Unified National Strategy for AFOs, discharges
              from areas where manure and wastewater are applied to the land can have a
              significant impact on water quality. These land application areas are outside the
              area of confined animals but can be implicated by their direct relationship to
              AFO waste. Discharges of CAFO wastes from land application areas can
              qualify as point source discharges in certain circumstances. Accordingly,
              NPDES permits for CAFOs should address land application of wastes from
              CAFOs.
1 Guidance Manual and Example NPDES Permit for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations
(Draft), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, August 6, 1999.
Sector Notebook Project                      16                             September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry
                     Introduction & Background
              How Do You Determine the Size of an AFO?
              Once the facility meets the AFO definition, its size, based upon the total
              numbers of animals confined, is a fundamental factor in determining whether it
              is a CAFO. The animal livestock industry is diverse and includes a number of
              different types of animals that are kept and raised in confined situations. In
              order to define these various livestock sectors in relative terms, the concept of
              an "animal unit"2 was established in the EPA regulations [40 CFR Part 122
              Appendix B]. An animal unit (AU) varies according to animal type; one animal
              is not necessarily equal to one AU. Each livestock type, except poultry, is
              assigned a multiplication factor to facilitate determining the total number of
              AUs at a given facility. Multiplication factors are defined in Exhibit 14.
Exhibit 14. Multiplication Factors to Calculate Animal Units
Animal Type
Beef Cattle (slaughter and feeder)
Mature Dairy Cattle
Swine (weighing more than 55 Ibs.)
Sheep
Horses
Poultry
Multiplication Factor
1.0
1.4
0.4
0.1
2.0
There are currently no animal unit
conversions for poultry operations. However
the regulations [40 CFR 122, Appendix B]
define the total number of animals (subject
to waste handling technology restrictions) for
specific poultry types that make these
operations subject to the regulation.
              These factors also are used when determining the total number of animal units
              at a facility with multiple animal types. Multiplication factors are applied to the
              total for each type of animal to determine the AU for that animal type. The AUs
              for each are then totaled for the facility total. A hypothetical AFO with multiple
              animal types and the calculation to determine the total number of animals
              confined at the facility is presented below (see box).
2 EPA and USDA both use the concept of "animal unit," however it is important to recognize that with
respect to swine and poultry, there are Agency differences in the application of this concept.
Sector Notebook Project
17
September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry
                     Introduction & Background
               Example: Animal Unit Determination for an AFO with Multiple Animal Types
               Situation: An AFO is being evaluated to determine if it meets the animal unit criteria
               for being defined as a CAFO and subject to NPDES permitting. The facility confines
               200 horses, 300 sheep, and 500 beef cattle.
               Animal Unit Calculation:
200 Horses x 2.0 =     400 AUs
300 Sheep x 0.1=        30 AUs
500 Beef Cattle x 1.0 =  500 AUs
                                                 Total
                      930 AUs
              Under the regulations, two or more AFOs under common ownership are
              considered one operation if they adjoin each other or use a common waste
              disposal system [40 CFR 122.23(b)(2)]. For example, facilities have a
              common waste disposal system if the wastes are commingled (e.g., stored in the
              same pond or lagoon  or land applied on commonly owned fields) prior to use
              or disposal. The collective number of animal units of the adjoining facilities is
              used in determining the size  of the AFO. Many poultry feeding operations
              adjoin each other and often meet the definition of one facility.

       Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations
              AFOs are CAFOs if they
              meet the regulatory definition
              [40 CFR 122, Appendix B]
              or have been designated on a
              case-by-case basis [40 CFR
              122.23 (c)] by the NPDES-
              authorized permitting
              authority.
              AFOs Defined as CAFOs
              According to the NPDES
              regulations, a specific
              definition must be used when
              determining whether an AFO
              is a CAFO. The definition is
              broken down according to
              the number of animals
              confined at the facility (see
              box). AFOs with more than
              1,000 AUs are CAFOs.
              AFOs with 301 to 1,000
  AFOs are Defined as CAFOs if:

  •  More than 1,000 AUs are confined at the
    facility [40 CFR 122, Appendix B (a)];  or

  •  From 301 to 1,000 AUs are confined at the
    facility and:

    S  Pollutants are discharged into waters of
       the U.S. through a man-made ditch,
       flushing system, or other similar man-
       made device; or

    S  Pollutants are discharged directly into
       waters of the U.S. that originate outside
       of and pass over, across, or through the
       facility or come into direct contact with
       the confined animals.
Sector Notebook Project
18
September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry
                    Introduction & Background
             AUs are defined as CAFOs only if, in addition to the number of animals
             confined, they also meet one of the specific criteria addressing the method of
             discharge (see text box).

                    AFOs with fewer than 300 AUs are not defined as CAFOs under the
                    current regulations but may be designated as a CAFO.

                    AFOs With More  Than 1,000 A Us are CAFOs.  Under exi sting
                    regulations, virtually all AFOs with more than 1,000 AUs are CAFOs
                    and should apply for an NPDES permit. For individual animal types,
                    the regulations state the number of animals required for the facility to be
                    defined as a CAFO.  These numbers are presented in Exhibit 15. If the
                    number of AUs for any one animal type at a facility exceeds the
                    corresponding number, or if the cumulative number of animal types
                    exceeds 1,000 AUs, the facility is defined as a CAFO.

                      Exhibit 15. Threshold Number of Animals (by Animal Type) to Meet
                             the Definition of a CAFO with More Than 1,000 AUs
Animal Type
Beef cattle
Dairy cattle
Swine
Sheep
Horses
Chickens
Turkeys
Ducks
Number of Animals Units
1,000 slaughter or feeder cattle
700 mature dairy cattle (whether milked or dry)
2,500 swine (over 25 kilos - approximately 55 Ibs.)
10,000 sheep or lambs
500 horses
100,000 laying hens or broilers when the facility
continuous flow watering system); 30,000 laying
hens or broilers (if liquid manure system)
(if
55,000 turkeys
5,000 ducks
                     Source: 40 CFR Part 122, Appendix B (a)

                    AFOs With 301 to 1,000 AUs May Be CAFOs.  AFOs with 301 to
                    1,000 AUs are defined as CAFOs only if, in addition to the number of
                    animals confined, they also meet one of the specific criteria governing
                    "method of discharge." If the number of AUs for any one animal type
                    exceeds the specified number [40 CFR Part 122, Appendix B(b)], or if
                    the cumulative number of animal types exceeds 300 AUs, and only one
                    of the "method of discharge" criteria are met, the facility is defined as a
                    CAFO.
Sector Notebook Project
19
September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry	Introduction & Background
                     AFOs with up to 300 AUs.  An AFO with up to 300 AUs may be
                     considered a CAFO only if designated as such by the permitting
                     authority and if it meets the discharge criteria (see below).

              AFOs Designated as CAFOs
              According to the NPDES permit regulations [40 CFR 122.23 (c)], the NPDES-
              authorized permitting authority can, on a case-by-case basis, designate any AFO
              as a CAFO after determining that it is a significant contributor of pollution to
              waters of the United States. No AFO with fewer than 300 AUs shall be
              designated a CAFO unless it also meets the discharge criteria outlined in 40
              CFR 122.23(c).

              An AFO cannot be designated a CAFO on a case-by-case basis until the an
              inspector has conducted an on-site inspection of the facility and determined that
              the facility is a significant contributor of pollution. The designation is based on
              the factors listed in 40 CFR  122.23 (c) and shown below.  This determination
              may be based on visual observations as well as water quality monitoring.
              Exhibit 16 shows example case-by-case designation factors and the inspection
              focus related to each factor.
Sector Notebook Project                      20                            September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry
                      Introduction & Background
                   Exhibit 16. Example Factors for Case-by-Case CAFO Designation
                       Designation Factor
                  Inspection Focus
                Size of the operation and amount
                of waste reaching waters of the
                United States
         Number of animals
         Type of feedlot surface
         Feedlot design capacity
         Waste handling/storage system design
         capacity
                Location of the operation relative
                to waters of the United States
         Location of water bodies
         Location of flood plain
         Proximity to surface waters
         Depth to groundwater, direct hydrologic
         connection to surface water
                Means of conveyance of animal
                waste and process waste waters
                into waters of the United States
         Identify existing or potential man-made
         (includes natural and artificial materials)
         structures that may convey waste
         Direct contact between animals and
         surface water
                Slope, vegetation, rainfall and other
                factors affecting the likelihood or
                frequency of
                discharge
         Slope of feedlot and surrounding land
         Type of feedlot (concrete, soil, etc.)
         Climate (e.g., arid or wet)
         Type and condition of soils
         Depth to groundwater
         Drainage controls
         Storage structures
         Amount of rainfall
         Volume and quantity of runoff
         Buffers
                Other Relevant Factors
         Waste handling and storage
         Land application timing, methods, rates
         and areas
               Following the on-site inspection, the NPDES permitting authority will prepare
               a brief report that: (1) identifies findings and any follow-up actions; (2)
               determines whether or not the facility should be designated as a CAFO; and (3)
               documents the reasons for that determination.  Regardless of the outcome, a
               letter would be prepared and sent to the facility. The letter should inform the
               facility that it has been either: (1) designated a CAFO and required to apply for
               an NPDES permit; or (2) has not been designated as a CAFO at this time. In
               those cases where a facility has not been designated as a CAFO but the NPDES
               authority has identified areas of concern, these would be noted in the letter.
Sector Notebook Project
21
September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry	Introduction & Background
n.D.  Geographic Distribution and Economic Trends

              As described in the executive summary of the Preliminary Data Summary:
              Feedlots Point Source Category Study (December 1998), livestock production
              operations in the U.S. vary widely in both the mode and scale of production,
              with individual farms spanning small scale production facilities with few
              animals to large, intensive production facilities. The following are summaries
              of the principal producing States in 1992 by animal commodity for beef cattle,
              swine, dairy cattle, and poultry.

              •       Ranked by the number of cattle and calves sold, the top ten producing
                     states controlled 65 percent of U.S. beef production in 1992.  Texas
                     was the largest beef producing state accounting for 16 percent of 1992
                     sales.  Other major states included Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma,
                     Colorado, Iowa, California, South Dakota, Missouri, Wisconsin, and
                     Montana.

              •       The hog farming sector is concentrated among the top five producing
                     states that together supply about 60 percent of U.S. pork production.
                     Iowa accounted for 24 percent of 1992 hog sales. Other major hog
                     producing  states included North Carolina, Illinois, Minnesota, Indiana,
                     and Nebraska.

                     The top five dairy cattle states controlled more than 50 percent of all
                     U.S. milk production in 1992.  Wisconsin was the largest dairy
                     producing  state with 16 percent of volume milk sales. Other major milk
                     producing  states included California, New York, Pennsylvania, and
                     Minnesota.

              •       Broiler and chicken meat production is  controlled by 10 producing
                     states, which supply about 80 percent of all broilers sold.  Arkansas
                     was the largest broiler producer in 1992, with  16 percent of sales.
                     Other major states included Georgia, Alabama, North Carolina,
                     Mississippi, Texas, Maryland, California, Delaware, and Virginia.

                     The top ten producing states accounted for about 80 percent of turkey
                     production. North Carolina was the largest turkey producing state in
                     1992, with about 20 percent of sales. Other top producing states
                     included Minnesota, California, Arkansas, Virginia, Missouri, Indiana,
                     Texas, Iowa, and Pennsylvania.

              •       Egg production is dominated by 10 producing states that supply almost
                     two-thirds  of the eggs sold.  California was the largest egg producing
                     state in 1992 with about 12 percent of all eggs  sales.  Other major
                     producers included Indiana, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Ohio, Arkansas,
                     Texas, North Carolina, and Alabama.
Sector Notebook Project                      22                             September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry	Introduction & Background
              Recent trends in the U.S. livestock sector are marked by a decline in the number
              of farms attributable to ongoing consolidation in the livestock industry. Farms
              are closing - especially small farming operations - due to competitive
              pressures from highly specialized - often lower cost - large scale producers.
              This trend toward fewer and larger livestock operations represents a significant
              shift in the industry. Both 1992 and 1997 Agriculture Census data highlight the
              ongoing shift from many small, diversified farms toward fewer large-scale,
              year-round, intensive breeding and feeding operations.

              Another industry trend has been a steady increase in animal production and
              sales in the U.S.  This trend has occurred at the same time there has been a
              decrease in the number of animals on site. This trend signals continued gains in
              production efficiency on U.S. farms in the form of higher per-animal yields and
              quicker turnover of animals prior to marketing.

              A detailed industry economic profile is presented in the Feedlots Point Source
              Category Study and covers major commodity  sectors, industry trends in the
              U.S. livestock and poultry farm sectors, recent market trends, farm revenue,
              farm-gate prices, financial operating conditions, industry marketing chain, and
              industry employment generated.

              Additional geographic and economic information can be found by accessing the
              1997 Agriculture Census at http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/ and the National
              Agriculture Statistics Service at http://www.usda.gov/nass/.
Sector Notebook Project                     23                             September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry	Introduction & Background
                   THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Sector Notebook Project                     24                           September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                    Summary of Operations, Impacts,
	& Pollution Prevention Opportunities
III.   SUMMARY OF OPERATIONS, IMPACTS, AND POLLUTION PREVENTION
       OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE AGRICULTURAL LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION
       INDUSTRY

             This section provides an overview of commonly employed operations and
             maintenance activities in the agricultural livestock production industry. This
             discussion is not exhaustive; the operations and maintenance activities
             discussed are intended to represent the material inputs, major pollution
             outputs, and associated environmental impacts from agricultural livestock
             production practices. General pollution prevention and waste minimization
             opportunities are also discussed in the context of each of the operations and
             maintenance activities.

             The choice of practices or operations influences the material used and the
             resulting pollution outputs and environmental impacts. Keep in mind that
             environmental impacts are relative, as some kinds of pollution outputs have
             far greater impacts than others.

       Impact of Agriculture on the Environment
                                                       The Clean Water Act Plan
                                                       of 1998 called for the
                                                       development of the
                                                       EPA/USDA Unified National
                                                       Strategy for Animal Feeding
                                                       Operations (AFOs) to
                                                       minimize the water
                                                       quality and public health
                                                       impacts of AFOs.
According to the EPA/USDA Unified
National Strategy for Animal Feeding
Operations (March 9, 1999), despite
progress in improving water quality, 40
percent of the Nation's waterways assessed
by States do not meet goals for fishing,
swimming, or both.  While pollution from
factories and sewage treatment plants has
been dramatically reduced, the runoff from
city streets, agricultural activities,
including AFOs, and other sources continues to degrade the environment and
puts environmental resources (i.e., surface water, drinking water) at risk.
According to EPA's 1996 305(b) water quality report, the top two pollutants
from agriculture were identified as sediment and nutrients, respectively.
Additional agricultural pollutants, such as animal wastes, salts, and pesticides,
were identified by EPA1. The following presents a brief discussion of the
environmental impacts or effects of agricultural pollutants.

(1)    Nutrients. Excess nutrients in water (i.e., phosphorus and nitrogen)
       can result in or contribute to low levels of dissolved oxygen (anoxia),
1 Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, January 1993.
Sector Notebook Project                    25                            September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                     Summary of Operations, Impacts,
	& Pollution Prevention Opportunities
                     eutrophication, and toxic algal blooms. These conditions may be
                     harmful to human health; may adversely affect the suitability of the
                     water for other uses; and, in combination with other circumstances,
                     have been associated with outbreaks of microbes such asPfiesteria
                    piscicida.

                     S     Phosphorus.  Phosphorus determines the amount of algae
                           growth and aging that occurs in freshwater bodies. Runoff and
                           erosion can carry some of the applied phosphorus to nearby
                           water bodies.

                     S     Nitrogen. In addition to eutrophi cation, excessive nitrogen
                           causes other water quality problems. Dissolved ammonia at
                           concentrations above 0.2 mg/L may be toxic to fish.
                           Biologically important inorganic forms of nitrogen are
                           ammonium, nitrate, and nitrite.  Ammonium becomes adsorbed
                           to the soil and is lost primarily with eroding sediment. Even if
                           nitrogen is not in a readily available form as it leaves the field,
                           it can be converted to an available form either during transport
                           or after delivery to waterbodies. Nitrogen in the form of
                           nitrate, can contaminate drinking water supplies drawn from
                           groundwater. Nitrates above 10 ppm in drinking water are
                           potentially dangerous, especially to newborn infants.

              (2)     Sediment,  Sediment affects the use of water in many ways. Suspended
                     solids reduce the amount of sunlight available to aquatic plants, cover
                     fish spawning areas and food supplies, clog the filtering capacity of
                     filter feeders, and clog and harm the gills offish. Turbidity interferes
                     with the feeding habits offish. These effects combine to reduce fish
                     and plant populations and decrease the overall productivity of waters.
                     In addition, recreation is limited because of the decreased fish
                     population and the water's unappealing, turbid appearance. Turbidity
                     also reduces visibility, making swimming less safe.

              (3)     Animal Wastes. Animal waste includes the fecal and urinary wastes of
                     livestock and poultry; process water (such as from a milking parlor);
                     and the feed, bedding, litter, and soil with which fecal and urinary
                     matter and process water become intermixed.  Manure and wastewater
                     from AFOs have the potential to contribute pollutants such as nutrients
                     (e.g., nitrogen and phosphorus), organic matter,  sediments, pathogens,
                     heavy metals, hormones, antibiotics, and ammonia to the environment.
                     Decomposing organic matter (i.e., animal waste) can reduce oxygen
                     levels and cause fish kills.  Solids deposited in waterbodies can
Sector Notebook Project                    26                            September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry
               Summary of Operations, Impacts,
            & Pollution Prevention Opportunities
                     accelerate eutrophication through the release of nutrients over
                     extended periods of time.

                     Contamination of groundwater can be a problem if runoff results from
                     the misapplication or over application of manure to land or if storage
                     structures are not built to minimize seepage. Because animal feed
                     sometimes contains heavy metals (e.g., arsenic, copper, zinc), the
                     possibility for harmful accumulations of metals on land where manure
                     is improperly or over applied is possible.
                      Pathogens in manure.  Pathogens in manure can cause diseases in
                      humans if people come in contact with the manure. Pathogens in manure
                      also create a food safety concern if manure is applied directly to crops at
                      inappropriate times or if manure contaminates a product (e.g., food, milk).
                      In addition, pathogens are responsible for some shellfish bed closures.
                      Runoff from fields receiving manure may contain extremely high numbers
                      of bacteria (though all of these bacteria may not be harmful) if the manure
                      has not been properly incorporated. Pathogens, such as Cryptosporidium,
                      have been linked to impairments in drinking water supplies and threats to
                      human health.
                     Air pollution is also a concern in relation to animal wastes. Farms on
                     which animals are raised often concentrate odors associated with the
                     microbial degradation of manure and other by-products of the
                     production of meat, milk and eggs.  Odors can be a nuisance to
                     neighbors of animal operations, and there is increasing concern about
                     the potential health effects from emissions of odorous compounds.

              (4)    Salts. Salts are a product of the natural weathering process of soil and
                     geologic material. In soils that have poor subsurface drainage, high salt
                     concentrations are created within the root zone where most water
                     extraction occurs. The accumulation of soluble and exchangeable salts
                     leads to soil dispersion,  structure breakdown, decreased infiltration,
                     and possible toxicity; thus, salts often become a serious problem on
                     irrigated land, both for continued agricultural production and for water
                     quality considerations. High salt concentrations in streams can harm
                     freshwater aquatic plants just as excess soil salinity damages
                     agricultural crops.

              (5)    Pesticides. The primary pollutants from pesticides are the active and
                     inert ingredients,  diluents, and any persistent degradation products.
                     Pesticides and their degradation products may enter groundwater and
                     surface water in solution, in emulsion, or bound to soils. Pesticides
                     may, in some instances, cause impairments to the uses of surface
Sector Notebook Project
27
September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                     Summary of Operations, Impacts,
	& Pollution Prevention Opportunities
                     waters and groundwater. Both the degradation and sorption
                     characteristics of pesticides are highly variable. Some types of
                     pesticides are resistant to degradation and may persist and/or
                     accumulate in aquatic ecosystems. Pesticides may harm the
                     environment by eliminating or reducing populations of desirable
                     organisms, including endangered species.

                     Within a livestock production establishment, pesticides may be applied
                     directly to livestock or to structures (e.g., barns, housing units) to
                     control pests, including parasites, vectors, and predators.

                     Pesticides are both suspected and known for causing immediate and
                     delayed-onset health hazards for humans. If exposed to pesticides,
                     humans may experience adverse effects, such as nausea, respiratory
                     distress, or more severe symptoms up to and including death.  Animals
                     and birds impacted by pesticides can experience similar illnesses or
                     develop other types of physical distress.

       Pollution Prevention/Waste Minimization Opportunities in the Agricultural
       Livestock Production Industry

              The best way to reduce pollution is to prevent it in the first place.  Industries
              have creatively implemented pollution prevention techniques that improve
              operations and increase profits while minimizing environmental impacts.  This
              can be done in many ways such as reducing material inputs, reusing
              byproducts, improving management practices, and employing substitute toxic
              chemicals.

              To encourage these approaches, this  section provides general descriptions of
              some pollution prevention advances that have been implemented within the
              agricultural livestock production industry. While the list is not exhaustive, it
              does provide core information that can be used as the starting point for
              establishments interested in beginning their own pollution prevention projects.
              This section provides information  from real activities that may be or are being
              implemented by this sector. When possible, information is provided that gives
              the context in which the technique can be effectively used. Please note that
              the activities described  in this section do not necessarily apply to all facilities
              that fall within this sector.  Facility-specific conditions must be carefully
              considered when pollution prevention options are evaluated, and the full
              impacts of the  change must examine how each option affects air, land, and
              water pollutant releases.

              The use of pollution prevention technologies and environmental controls can
              substantially reduce the volume and concentration of the contaminants
Sector Notebook Project                     28                            September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                    Summary of Operations, Impacts,
	& Pollution Prevention Opportunities
              released/discharged into the surrounding environment. In some cases, these
              pollution prevention approaches may be economically beneficial to the
              agricultural production industries because they decrease the amount of
              chemicals needed, and therefore the cost of maintaining operations.

              Waste minimization generally encompasses any source reduction or recycling
              that results in either the reduction of total volume or the toxicity of hazardous
              waste.  Source reduction is a reduction of waste generation at the source,
              usually within a process. Source reduction can include process modifications,
              feedstock (raw material) substitution, housekeeping and management
              processes, and increases in efficiency of machinery and equipment.  Source
              reduction includes any activity that reduces the amount of waste that exits a
              process.  Recycling  refers to the use or reuse of a waste as an effective
              substitute for a commercial product or as an ingredient or feedstock in an
              industrial process.

              It should be noted that as individual practices, these pollution prevention and
              waste minimization practices can significantly reduce the environmental
              impacts of agricultural operations.  However, to get the full effect of the
              practices and maximize pollution prevention potential, an agricultural
              operation must consider its individual practices in the context of a system.
              The practices combine to form an integrated system in which each practice
              interacts with the others and is affected by the others.  That is, outputs from
              one practice may be inputs into one of the other practices, in effect creating a
              closed-loop system that both maximizes profits and minimizes environmental
              impacts. By considering their establishments as systems, operators will be
              better able to evaluate and implement pollution prevention or waste
              minimization opportunities.

       Operations of Livestock Production

              Livestock production generally includes the following activities:

                     •      Feed storage, loading, and unloading
                            Housing
                     •      Feeding and watering
                            Managing animal waste
                     •      Applying pesticides and pest control
                            Maintaining and repairing agricultural  machinery and vehicles
                     •      Fuel  use and fueling activities
Sector Notebook Project                     29                             September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry
                     Summary of Operations, Impacts,
                  & Pollution Prevention Opportunities
               The additional activities of planning and management are required for all of
               the above processes to occur. Exhibit 17 presents the material inputs and
               pollution outputs from each of these processes.


         Exhibit 17. Livestock Production Activities and Potential Pollution Outputs
           Activity
              Potential Pollution Outputs
    Feed storage, loading, and
           unloading
S Dust emissions
S Unusable or spilled feed
S Leachate from silage
S Nutrient-contaminated runoff
           Housing
S Animal waste
S Waste bedding
S Air emissions (e.g., odors, methane, ammonia)
S Washwater from flushing and washdown of housing areas
            Feeding
S Animal waste
S Air emissions (e.g., dust, methane)
S Moldy feed discard
S Spilled feed
S Nutrient-contaminated runoff
           Watering
S Animal waste
S Water contaminated with animal waste
S Destruction of stream bank, riparian zone (from animals in
 streams)
   Typically, most of the above activities include the generation of animal waste.  Animal waste must be
               managed appropriately because of its potential environmental impacts.
Managing animal waste,
includes collecting and
transporting; storing and
treating; and utilizing animal
waste








• •







S Discharges and leaching of wastewater
S Manure and urine
S Bedding
S Air emissions (e.g., ammonia, methane, other gases, odor,
dust)
S Hair and/or feathers
S Carcasses
S Pathogens
S Heavy metals
S Wasted products (e.g., milk, eggs)

Sector Notebook Project
     30
September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry
                    Summary of Operations, Impacts,
                 & Pollution Prevention Opportunities
         Exhibit 17. Livestock Production Activities and Potential Pollution Outputs
           Activity
             Potential Pollution Outputs
                 Additional activities that occur at agricultural establishments and
                           their potential pollution outputs include:
 Pest control
S Discharges and leaching of pesticides
S Chemical air emissions
 Maintaining and repairing
 agricultural machinery and
 vehicles
S Used oil
S Spent fluids and organic solvents
S Used tires
S Spent batteries
S Metal machining wastes
S Scrap metal
 Fuel use and fueling activities
S Fuel spills or leaks
III.A.  Feed Storage, Loading, and Unloading

              Feed storage, loading, unloading, and transport are major activities in
              livestock production.  Livestock feed may include hay, grain (sometimes
              supplemented with protein, vitamins, mineral supplements and antibiotics),
              and silage — with grain and hay being the most common feeds. Livestock
              operations may produce all, a portion, or none of the animal feed. Purchased
              feed is transported to the livestock operation by truck or, at very large animal
              operations, by rail. Stored feed must be loaded, transported to the animals'
              normal feed location, and unloaded.

              S      Hay that has been cut and partially dried is collected from fields and
                     compacted into small rectangular bales or rolled into large round bales.
                     Hay may be stored in covered and enclosed buildings, in fields, and in
                     outside storage areas where it may or may not be covered. Small
                     rectangular hay bales may be placed in a barn by conveyor.

                     Feed hay is often transported on tractor-drawn wagons to feed bunkers,
                     feed rings,  and mangers.  Small rectangular hay bales may be
                     mechanically or manually placed in bunkers and mangers. Front-end
                     loaders are used to unload round bales and place them in the feed
                     rings.
Sector Notebook Project
     31
September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                    Summary of Operations, Impacts,
	& Pollution Prevention Opportunities
                     Harvested grain is sometimes milled (ground) on site or more
                     commonly sent offsite to a milling facility for grinding prior to being
                     returned to the facility for use.  Depending on the livestock species,
                     protein, vitamins, mineral supplements, and antibiotics are often added
                     at the time of milling or mixing. Grain is typically stored in aerated
                     grain bins and handled with augers. High moisture corn is stored in
                     silos.  Grain, which is typically placed in feed bunkers, troughs, or
                     feeder units, can be transported using a front-end loader, tractor front
                     bucket, grain wagon, or manually for smaller volumes.

                     Silage is usually produced onsite and may consist of chopped green
                     corn or hay.  Silage is allowed to ferment in vertical or horizontal silos
                     or storage bunkers prior to use as feed.  Silage is removed from silos
                     and then distributed along the feed bunks.

                     Potential Pollution Outputs and Environmental Impacts
                     The primary pollution outputs include unusable feed; dust emissions
                     from loading, unloading, and grinding activities; air emissions from
                     transportation to and from sites; and leachate from silage.  A minor
                     pollution output is contamination of storm water from spilled feed.
                     Dust emissions pollute the air that agricultural workers and animals
                     breathe and can cause respiratory problems in instances of prolonged
                     exposure.  Research indicates that silage materials  stored at 65  percent
                     moisture content or higher can produce leachate.

                     Pollution Prevention/Waste Minimization Opportunities
                     One potential pollution prevention practice focuses on minimizing
                     unusable feed and consequently maximizing the amount of feed that is
                     consumed by the animal.  One way to maximize animal consumption
                     is by grinding the feed in either a grinder-mixer or  a tub grinder.
                     Grinding increases the ability of the animal to digest the feed. Where
                     possible, grinders should be used with a dust collector to reduce dust
                     emissions.  Silage leachate can be reduced by allowing the material to
                     wilt in the field for 24 hours, varying cutting and harvesting times,
                     cutting or crimping the material, or adding moisture-absorbent material
                     to the silage as it is stored2.
2 Farm-A-Syst, Fact Sheet #9, Reducing the Risk ofGroundwater Contamination by Improving
Silage Storage, University of Wisconsin, Extension/Cooperative Extension, College of Agricultural
and Live Sciences.
Sector Notebook Project                     32                             September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                     Summary of Operations, Impacts,
	& Pollution Prevention Opportunities
III.B.  Housing
              Livestock housing may consist of feed lots, barns, stables or stalls, corrals,
              covered loafing areas, pens, poultry houses, and other similar structures that
              confine the animals in an area and manner best suited to the overall livestock
              production process. There are three general ways to house livestock:

              (1)    Enclosed housing (i.e., a roofed and walled structure)
              (2)    Partially enclosed (i.e., usually roofed with walls on some structure
                     sides)
              (3)    Open or no structures

              The type of housing used for a particular animal type/livestock production is
              related to animal size, feeding, animal health and biosecurity, climate, and the
              goal of achieving the optimum weight gain or commodity produced at the
              lowest cost.

                     Dairy cattle. Most dairy operations provide  separate housing for
                     different animal groups based on age or milking status (lactating
                     versus dry). Calves may be housed in barns, individual pens within a
                     barn, open fields, and hutches. Heifers may be housed in freestall
                     barns and bedded pack housing.  Bedded pack housing is often used
                     with an open feeding area. Dry cows (<3 months to calving) are
                     usually housed on pasture or in freestall barns. Lactating cows are
                     housed in freestall and other types of barns  such as stanchion, corrals,
                     structures, and open lots that provide shade3.

                     Beef cattle. Beef cattle are mainly housed in pastures and open
                     feedlots.  Calving facilities may consist of an  open pasture, a shed with
                     stalls, or an open, wind-protected pen. Bulls are either penned
                     separately or in groups of up to  10.  They may be contained in a  barn
                     or in an open pen with shade. Cattle feedlots  are usually open areas
                     that may have windbreaks and shade. Very few beef cattle are housed
                     in freestall barns with slotted floors for manure collection.

                     Sheep.  Sheep are maintained primarily on open grazing land, but some
                     are kept in open lots with shelters, facilities with slotted floors for
                     manure collection, and in bedded pens.
3 Preliminary Data Summary: Feedlots Point Source Category Study, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC, December 1998.


Sector Notebook Project                     33                             September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                    Summary of Operations, Impacts,
	& Pollution Prevention Opportunities
              •      Horses. Most horses maintained in concentrated numbers are housed in
                    stalls within an enclosed barn.  Approximately 70 percent of the horse
                    operations that use stalls have one animal per stall. Horses may also
                    be housed in partially enclosed housing or on pasture.

                    Poultry.  Poultry including turkeys and ducks are maintained in an
                    enclosed house.  Chicken broilers, roasters, and pullets, which may be
                    caged, are usually maintained in houses on a solid floor with bedding.
                    Breeders are usually maintained in houses with a slatted floor generally
                    covering one-third of each side of the house along the length of the
                    side-wall  of the house.  Most layers are maintained in houses inside of
                    cages with mesh floors, and a few in houses with a litter or slat/litter
                    floor.  Turkey poults are reared in enclosed brooder houses, then
                    generally are moved to grower houses and sometimes to range.
                    Turkeys are normally raised on a dirt or clay floor with a bedding
                    cover. Duck housing is normally an enclosed house that has a wire-
                    mesh floor, a solid floor, or a combination of the two.

              •      Goats. Goats are housed in loose housing common areas that may
                    contain bedded and exercise areas, individual stalls, pens, and corrals.
                    Pregnant does are usually housed in bedded pens.

              •      Swine. While some swine are raised outdoors with a shelter (e.g.,
                    hoop housing), most are housed in an enclosed barn or house.  Breed
                    sows may be kept in small group pens and then during farrowing, a
                    sow is usually placed in an individual pen.  Young pigs are placed
                    together in larger nursery pens. Finishing operations keep several pigs
                    in the same pen.

              The floors of some livestock housing for cattle, swine, and sheep, may be of
              slotted construction. The floors for some poultry housing may be of wire-
              mesh or slat construction.  The slotted, wire-mesh, and slatted housing floor
              systems allow the manure to drop into a long-term or temporary
              storage/collection/transfer area.

              Bedding is mostly used in the housing of dairy cattle, poultry, and horses but
              may be used for the housing of any of the livestock types presented above.
              Manure and bedding needs to be removed at regular intervals. Methods of
              removal vary depending on the type of housing. Manure is primarily removed
              from housing by scraping, scooping, and flushing (see Section IHD.
              Managing Animal Wastes).
Sector Notebook Project                    34                            September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                    Summary of Operations, Impacts,
	& Pollution Prevention Opportunities
                    Potential Pollution Outputs and Environmental Impacts
                    The primary pollution outputs include animal wastes, bedding,
                    wastewater from flushing and washdown of housing areas, and air
                    emissions (e.g., methane, ammonia, and odors).  The main impacts of
                    these outputs are soil and water contamination stemming from waste
                    spills, improper storage, and runoff.

                    From an environmental standpoint, each type of livestock housing
                    (enclosed, partially enclosed or open) has advantages and
                    disadvantages. The move from outdoor housing to confinement
                    housing has removed the weather factor and runoff, which is a
                    substantial problem for outdoor housing, and  provided producers the
                    opportunity to manage manure as a resource and not a waste.
                    However, concentrated amounts of manure can be viewed as a
                    disadvantage. While concentrating the animals (and therefore the
                    animal manure) may lead to easier manure management, concentrated
                    amounts of manure have a greater potential to significantly impact the
                    environment in the event of a spill, release, or improper management.

                    Wastes, including manure and fouled bedding, that are not properly
                    transported from housing could spill and potentially contaminate storm
                    water runoff.  Open housing such as feedlots, corrals, and pens, if not
                    scraped as necessary, may also contaminate storm water runoff.
                    Wastes carried in storm water runoff may be discharged to surface
                    waters causing pollution, or may be deposited in low areas and
                    potentially leach to the groundwater.

                    Animals contained in pasture areas (technically not housing but used
                    for livestock containment) can wear away soil from feeding sites,
                    destroy streambanks at natural  watering sites, and, if allowed access,
                    defecate and urinate in surface waters.  This results in increased runoff,
                    soil erosion as well as sediments, manure, and urine in the water.

                    With enclosed or partially enclosed housing areas, odors and other
                    gases (e.g., methane, ammonia, and hydrogen sulfide gases) from
                    animal waste can be concentrated, potentially harming the health of the
                    animals and workers.  When the gases are released outside, the odor
                    can affect the surrounding areas and create nuisance problems for
                    neighbors.
Sector Notebook Project                     35                            September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                     Summary of Operations, Impacts,
	& Pollution Prevention Opportunities
                    Pollution Prevention/Waste Minimization Opportunities
                    While the majority of the wastes discussed above for housing cannot
                    be prevented, both the wastes and their impacts can be reduced by
                    implementing best management practices.

                    •      Minimize water use during cleaning.  By cleaning livestock
                           (except poultry) housing on a regular and frequent basis and
                           using minimal amounts of water during cleaning, operations
                           may reduce the volume of wastes to be handled and used.
                           Keeping the waste dry also facilitates its management, reduces
                           runoff potential, and minimizes odors from decomposition.

                    •      Minimize runoff by cleaning open areas.  Cleaning open areas
                           reduces the potential for the runoff of wastes to surface waters.

                    •      Reduce odor by preventing ammonia generation. Ammonia is
                           created by the rapid conversion of urinary nitrogen (urea) to
                           ammonia by microorganisms.  By applying various chemicals
                           (e.g., urease inhibitors) on a weekly basis, the conversion of
                           nitrogen to ammonia can be reduced, thus minimizing
                           ammonia emissions and odors, and conserving valuable
                           fertilizer4.

                    •      Use tools to minimize odor impacts on the surrounding
                           community.  When considering the installation of a new
                           livestock operation or the expansion of an existing operation,
                           facilities should consider maximizing the distance to
                           neighboring dwellings, the existence of "reverse" setback rules,
                           the potential for new neighbors, and the potential impact
                           neighbors may have on limiting the expansion of the animal
                           housing. Additional methods for reducing odors in other
                           aspects of livestock operations are discussed below.

III.C.  Animal Nutrition and Health

              There are many activities and considerations when managing animal nutrition
              and health, including feeding, watering,  and biosecurity issues.  Animal
              nutrition is an important consideration for livestock operators for various
              reasons, including the health of the animals, as well as the nutrient
4 Use of Urease Inhibitors to Control Nitrogen Loss From Livestock Waste, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, 1997.
Sector Notebook Project                     36                            September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                     Summary of Operations, Impacts,
	& Pollution Prevention Opportunities
              composition of the manure.  The nutrient composition of manure (nitrogen
              and phosphorus) is directly related to the composition of the animal feed, feed
              supplements, and ability of the animal to digest the feed.

              Feeding
              Corn, soybean, grasses, hay, silage, and other grains are some of the common
              food sources for livestock. Most livestock operations adjust the composition
              of the animals' feed to meet the animals' current protein needs. As an
              example, dry cows are typically fed a lower protein diet when compared to
              cattle being milked or nursing calves.  Likewise, swine operations often use
              phase feeding and separation of sexes to best meet the animals' protein needs,
              lower feed costs, and reduce nutrient levels of the  manure.  Generally, swine
              operations feed varying protein diets in relationship to the growth phase and/or
              need of the animal. As an example, operations provide higher protein feed to
              farrowing sows, less protein to gilts, and even less to barrows (made possible
              through separate confinement of sexes). Some livestock operations place
              swine in confinements recently used for cattle.  The swine will receive a
              portion of its nutrient requirement by feeding on the cattle manure.  This
              provides an overall reduction in the nutrients excreted at the livestock
              operation.

              Feed supplements may include amino acids and enzymes. The supplement of
              synthetic lysine in swine feed assists in lowering the nitrogen level in the
              manure. The addition of this amino acid allows feeding of a lower protein
              diet. Normally, the phosphate in the phytic acid passes through the digestive
              tract of swine and poultry and is excreted. The addition of phytase, an enzyme
              to swine and poultry feed, will allow the animal to digest phytic acid from
              cereal grains and soybean meal and convert it to phosphate for use by the
              animal.  This reduces the need for supplemental phosphorus in the diet of
              swine and poultry. Currently, the use of phytase is not feasible due to
              economic and production  concerns.

              The ability of the animal to digest the feed can be  increased by fine grinding
              and pelletizing feed. Fine grinding increases the surface area of the feed and
              thereby increases the portion digested.

              Feeding can take place in  the housing facility, at a separate feeding facility or
              feeder unit(s), and from pastureland.  Other than grazing, where the animal
              (e.g., sheep, horses, cattle) goes to the feed, the feed is brought to the animals
              and placed in a feeding device. The feeding process begins with the feed
              being transported, by various means, from the storage areas to feeding area or
              unit. The method of feeding is usually related to the type of animal and the
              housing structure.
Sector Notebook Project                     37                            September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                    Summary of Operations, Impacts,
	& Pollution Prevention Opportunities
              •      Most dairy operations feed the animals between milking events and
                    may feed the animals from feed bunks that may be covered or
                    uncovered.  Small dairy cattle operations may feed the animals during
                    milking and place them on pasture for grazing between milkings.

                    Beef (feeder) cattle operations generally feed the animals from feed
                    bunks that may be  covered or uncovered.  These  operations may also
                    use feed rings for large bales of hay.

                    Horses, if maintained inside, are fed from a manger and/or other feed
                    device.

              •      Housed poultry and swine are generally fed continuously from feeding
                    devices.  The two major types of feeding devices for poultry and swine
                    are self feeders, which provide the animal with a constant supply of
                    food, and mechanical feeders, which distribute the feed to the animals
                    at predetermined intervals.

              Watering
              Watering involves the operation and maintenance of animal drinking systems
              or access to naturally-occurring surface waters or man-made watering
              structures (e.g., ponds, reservoirs).  It is essential that a constant or on-demand
              supply of water be provided for livestock.

              For those housed or in other types of confined areas, there are many different
              types of man-made watering devices, each of which can  be modified
              depending on the animal using the system.  Some of the  most commonly used
              systems include the following:

              •      Animal-operated pumps or drinkers.  Large livestock kept in enclosed
                    and partially enclosed housing can use animal-operated pumps or
                    valves (nose pumps/valves). Livestock-operated on-demand watering
                    devices allow the animal to use its nose to actuate a valve or push a
                    pendulum unit that dispenses water.  Small livestock kept in enclosed
                    housing generally have on-demand drinkers that are actuated by the
                    mouth or beak of the livestock.

              •      Trough systems. Large livestock kept in enclosed and partially
                    enclosed housing can also use trough systems. In trough  systems,
                    animals drink directly from troughs or tanks.  The discharge of water
                    to the trough/tank may be float-controlled or continuous.
Sector Notebook Project                     38                            September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                    Summary of Operations, Impacts,
	& Pollution Prevention Opportunities
              Many partially enclosed, open, and pasture/grazing livestock operations
              perform water hauling or provide access to watering sources to meet livestock
              watering needs.

              •       Water hauling. Water may also be provided to animals in open
                     pastures and grazing operations through water hauling. By using a
                     truck with a main storage tank and an easily-moved stock tank, the
                     watering point can be relocated as necessary throughout the operation.

              •       Access to privately-owned ponds or reservoirs using restricted access
                     ramps. For grazed cattle and pastured dairies, natural streams and
                     other surface waters provide a source of drinking water.  Many
                     partially enclosed, open, and pasture/grazing livestock operations
                     allow animals access to watering sources, such as privately-owned
                     ponds or reservoirs, via restricted access ramps.  Access ramps allow
                     the animals to use the water source while minimizing erosion of the
                     banks. While some reservoirs are  supplied by natural precipitation,
                     many use water pumping systems. Powered by gas, solar energy, and
                     wind, these systems transport  water from the water source to the
                     reservoir or pond.

              Biosecurity
              Biosecurity consists of the procedures used to prevent the spread of animal
              diseases from one facility to another.  Animal diseases can enter a facility with
              new animals, on equipment, and on people. Animals, equipment, and people
              that have recently been at another facility may pose the greatest biosecurity
              risk. Biosecurity procedures include such general categories as use of
              protective clothing, waiting periods for new animals and visitors, and
              cleaning.

              Biosecurity is important to livestock owners because some diseases can
              weaken or kill large numbers of animals at an infected facility. In some cases,
              the only remedy available to an operation is to sacrifice an entire group of
              animals in order to prevent the spread of the disease to other parts of the
              facility or to other facilities.  In other  words, a failure to conduct biosecurity
              procedures can cause serious financial and productivity losses for a livestock
              operation.

              The types of biosecurity procedures necessary will depend on the type of
              animal at a facility, the way the diseases of concern spread to and infect
              animals, and vulnerability of the animals to each specific disease. For
              example, if a group of swine has little immunity to a serious virus, and that
              virus can enter the facility on the skin or clothing of visitors, a facility may
Sector Notebook Project                     39                             September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                     Summary of Operations, Impacts,
	& Pollution Prevention Opportunities
              need to require visitors to observe a waiting period, take a shower, and change
              into clean clothing provided by the facility before entering. A different group
              of swine may have better immunity to the virus, and such biosecurity
              measures would be unnecessary.

              Some of the general types of biosecurity procedures include:

                    Controls on the introduction of new animals to a group or facility (such
                    as quarantine periods).

              •      Controls on equipment entering the farm (such as washing and
                    disinfecting crates).

                    Controls on personnel entering the farm (such as requiring service
                    personnel to stay out of animal buildings, or providing protective
                    clothing and footwear).

                    Controls on wild or domestic animal access (such as closing holes in
                    buildings to keep undesirable animals out).

              •      Sanitation  in animal housing areas (such as cleaning pens).

              •      Identification and segregation of sick animals (including adequate
                    removal and disposal of dead animals).

              The key to developing adequate biosecurity procedures is to find accurate
              information about animal diseases and how to prevent them.  Potential sources
              for specific biosecurity information and recommendations include extension
              services and other agricultural education organizations; veterinarians and
              veterinary organizations; producer and industry groups; and published
              information in books, magazines, and World Wide Web sources.

                    Potential Pollution Outputs and Environmental Impacts

                    Feeding.  When feeding, the potential pollution outputs are soil
                    erosion due to overgrazing, animal wastes (which are partially
                    composed  of unabsorbed feed components),  spilled feed during feed
                    unloading to feed equipment and by livestock as they feed, mechanical
                    failures with feed equipment (e.g., inoperative cutoff switch), and dust
                    emissions during feed transport.  The pollution outputs and potential
                    environmental impacts vary based on the type and location of feed
                    equipment and number of animals.
Sector Notebook Project                     40                            September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                     Summary of Operations, Impacts,
	& Pollution Prevention Opportunities
                     •      Overgrazing can contribute to soil losses due to severe erosion,
                           and impoverishment can change the vegetation composition
                           and associated organisms in rangelands.

                     •      Surface water and groundwater contamination from
                           concentrated wastes. Totally enclosed feed locations (e.g.,
                           barns, poultry houses), when compared to the same livestock
                           types in a partially sheltered or open area, may generate a larger
                           quantity of animal waste per acre of land due to a higher
                           concentration of livestock in a smaller area. Totally enclosed
                           structures are protected from rainfall and should not experience
                           the runoff of livestock wastes and wasted feed that may occur
                           in partially sheltered and open feed locations.

                     •      Surface water and groundwater contamination from runoff.
                           Partially sheltered feed locations (e.g., dairy operation free-stall
                           barns and covered loafing areas) and open  feed locations (e.g.,
                           feeder cattle maintained in a area that has no roofed or walled
                           structures) have a greater pollution potential due to runoff.
                           Areas with no vegetation may experience runoff of livestock
                           waste and spilled feed during rainfall events.

                     •      Air emissions (e.g., dust).  Areas with no vegetation that are dry
                           may produce dust pollution during the transportation of feed.

                     Watering. The primary pollution output from watering is excess
                     water, which most likely becomes wastewater that is contaminated
                     with livestock wastes (e.g., manure, urine) and feed. Surface waters
                     and groundwater can become contaminated from wastewater runoff,
                     and surface waters can be directly contaminated with wastes (e.g.,
                     manure, urine) from livestock that are allowed access to the water
                     (e.g., during watering).

                     Properly operated man-made watering systems significantly reduce the
                     environmental impact of livestock. However, continuous watering
                     systems that overflow and cause runoff often cause significant
                     environmental damage. Additionally, livestock with access to creeks,
                     rivers and other natural water sources cause environmental damage by
                     contaminating the water with animal waste, destroying riparian habitat,
                     and eroding the stream banks.
Sector Notebook Project                     41                            September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                     Summary of Operations, Impacts,
	& Pollution Prevention Opportunities
                    Pollution Prevention/Waste Minimization Techniques
                    There are many pollution prevention opportunities to reduce or
                    minimize the pollution outputs and impacts from livestock feeding and
                    watering activities. Generation of these wastes can be prevented
                    through management practices, preventive maintenance, appropriate
                    feedlot location, and use of waste minimization technologies.

                    Feeding. Wastes generated during feeding (e.g., feed spills, unused
                    feed) can be prevented by using troughs or mechanical feeding systems
                    that reduce  feed loss and prevent contact with watering areas, weather,
                    and the ground.

                    •      Use portable and/or covered feeders.  Feeders can be
                           constructed to be portable, eliminating the problem of manure
                           buildup that occurs around stationary feeders. For outdoor or
                           partially enclosed feeding operations, use of covered or
                           protected feeders prevents the feed from being exposed to rain
                           or wind. Examples of such feeders include mineral feeding
                           boxes, and weathervane mineral feeders.

                           S      A mineral feeding box is simply a trough that is raised
                                  off the ground, enclosed on three sides, and covered by
                                  a roof.

                           S      A weathervane mineral feeder consists of a 55-gallon
                                  drum with a cut out opening of sufficient size for the
                                  animal to reach the feed. The drum pivots on a concrete
                                  base that is heavy enough to prevent overturning by
                                  cattle or wind. A weathervane is attached to the top of
                                  the drum so the feed opening is pushed away from the
                                  wind direction, and rain is prevented from reaching the
                                  opening.

                    •      Use specially designed feeders.  For hay feeding operations,
                           using feeders that are  specifically designed to accept bales
                           minimizes hay loss and prevents potential nutrient runoff.

                    •      Use feeders that prevent spills and contact with the ground.
                           Feeding racks store hay between steel bars, thus minimizing the
                           amount of hay that an animal can pull from the rack and spill
                           on the ground.  Totally enclosed racks where the hay is located
                           inside a rectangular or circular enclosure may have diagonally
                           shaped bars containing the hay inside. These bars require the
Sector Notebook Project                     42                            September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                     Summary of Operations, Impacts,
	& Pollution Prevention Opportunities
                           animal to turn its head in order to reach through and remove its
                           head from the hay, thus significantly reducing the amount of
                           hay the animal can pull from the feeder and spill.

                    Watering. Pollution prevention techniques to prevent environmental
                    impacts from watering include the following:

                    •      Prevent access to surface waters.  Livestock operations can use
                           physical barriers (e.g., fencing) to prevent animals access to
                           surface waters (e.g., creeks, streams, rivers).  This will
                           minimize contamination of these waters caused by animal
                           defecating directly in the water, and runoff carrying waste
                           reaching the water.

                    •      Reduce excess water use and spills of water. Preventing
                           overflows of watering devices and excess water use during
                           watering can prevent water becoming mixed with wastes and
                           potential runoff.

                    •      Use self-watering devices. The on-demand, self-watering
                           systems that are used in many types of animal operations are an
                           effective method of reducing waste as long as they are well
                           maintained and checked frequently.

III.D.  Managing Animal Wastes

              Animal wastes are produced at all stages of the livestock production process,
              including housing, feeding, and watering. For the purposes of this document,
              the term animal waste refers to  animal manure, urine, and other materials
              that come in contact with and/or are managed with manure and urine in a
              typical livestock operation. These materials may include, but are not  limited
              to, bedding, wastewater from flushing and washdown of housing areas, lot
              runoff, disinfectants and cleaners, and spilled feed.

              Animal manure has been recognized for centuries as an excellent source of
              plant nutrients and as a soil "builder" in terms of its positive benefits to soil
              quality. Animal manure is an excellent source of nutrients for plants because it
              contains most of the elements required for plant growth.  Livestock operators
              today are managing and using manure as an important and valuable resource.
              If managed and used properly, manure can provide benefits for the livestock
              operation,  such as reduced commercial fertilizer use and increased soil quality.
Sector Notebook Project                    43                             September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry
               Summary of Operations, Impacts,
            & Pollution Prevention Opportunities
              Overall, the amount of animal wastes to be managed can be extensive.  The
              challenges of animal waste management have been compounded in recent
              years due to the growth of animal feeding operations. These types of
              operations have resulted in the concentration of manure production on an ever
              smaller land area. The consistency and volume of animal waste to be managed
              at a livestock operation depends on the types of animals at the facility.
              Generally, dairy cattle, beef cattle, swine, and sheep produce a comparatively
              wet waste and broiler poultry litter is dry (22-29 percent water). Laying and
              breeding operations are often considered to have wet manure because of how
              the waste is handled.  Exhibit  18 provides a comparison of the manure
              production for various animals.
                      Animal Type
      Weight of Manure
  (lbs/day/1000 Ibs of animal
         live weight)
                   Dairy Cow, Lactating
             80.0
    75-90
                       Beef, Cow
             63.0
    20-80
                Swine, Grower (40 - 220 Ib)
             63.4
    70-85
                     Poultry, Broiler
             80.0
    22-29
                         Sheep
             40.0
     70
                         Horse
             50.0
     70
               Source: Preliminary Data Summary: Feedlots Point Source Category Study, Table 11.2,
               U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC, December
               1998.
               Composting Manure and Other Organic Residues, Table III, Cooperative Extension,
               Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, March
               1997.
              Types of Animal Waste
              Management Systems. Animal waste
              management systems involve the
              collection, transport, storage,
              treatment, and utilization (rather than
              disposal) of waste, preferably in a
              manner that is economically and
              environmentally sound. The type of
              system that each operation uses
           Additional management activities at
           livestock operations include
           controlling or collecting runoff from
           outdoor lots and waste storage;
           directing clean water away from lots
           and storage areas; and disposing of
           livestock mortalities.
Sector Notebook Project
44
September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                    Summary of Operations, Impacts,
	& Pollution Prevention Opportunities
             depends on the type of animal(s), manure moisture content, size of the
             operation, acreage and site, available manure utilization methods, and
             operator's personal preference. Additional information on animal waste
             management systems, including collection, storage, treatment, transfer, and
             utilization, can be found in Chapter 9: Agricultural Waste Management
             Systems of the Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook (USD A,
             1992) which can be accessed at http://www.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/awmfh.html.

             Using Best Management Practices. Livestock operators can implement
             structural and  nonstructural best management practices (BMPs) to reduce the
             volume of animal wastes that must be managed.

             •      Structural BMPs for an animal waste management system may include
                    roof gutters on buildings to collect and divert clean water; vegetated
                    filter strips and riparian buffers to trap sediment; and surface water
                    diversions to move clean water around the areas containing waste.

             •      Non-structural (management) BMPs for an animal waste management
                    system may include reduced frequency and volume of washdown;
                    implementation of a comprehensive nutrient management plan;
                    relocation of manure stacks; and other site-specific land uses that do
                    not involve construction or land movement.

III.D.l. Collecting & Transporting Animal Wastes

             The most significant quantities of animal waste are generated at feeding,
             watering, and  housing locations.  Waste collection methods vary based on the
             type of housing and feeding operations, as well as manpower, available
             equipment, operator training, pen size, and manure moisture content. Some
             types of manure collection systems used in livestock productions are:

             •      Slotted floor systems. The slotted floor system allows the manure to
                    drop through the slots to a storage tank or area located beneath the
                    floor.

             •      Scraping.  Scraping is the primary method of manure collection for
                    open housing and a common method for partially enclosed housing
                    and enclosed housing.  Common scraping equipment includes small
                    tractor operated scrapers, tractor-pulled pan scrapers, and automated
                    alley scraper blades on a cable. The manure may be scraped into
                    storage facilities, to treatment, or to utilization equipment.
Sector Notebook Project                     45                            September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                     Summary of Operations, Impacts,
	& Pollution Prevention Opportunities
              •      Flushing. Flushing is often used in enclosed and partially enclosed
                    housing. Manual or automated hydraulic flush equipment uses water
                    to flush the manure to collection/storage pits or lagoons.

              The following describes the animal waste collection and transport systems
              used for different types of animals.

                    Dairy cattle.  Dairy cattle manure is usually collected and transported
                    from sheds and freestall barn alleys by a manual or automated
                    hydraulic flush in warmer climates and alley scrapers in colder
                    climates.  Manure dropped in milking parlors is commonly collected
                    by a manual hydraulic flush. Freestall barns and alleys may also have
                    the manure collected by scraping. Manure in open areas such as
                    corrals is primarily collected by scraping; manure in grazed areas is not
                    collected.

              •      Beef cattle. Manure is usually collected from beef cattle feedlots by
                    scraping.  The feedlot area may be unpaved, partially paved around
                    feed and watering areas, or totally paved. Though rare, if beef cattle
                    are kept in enclosed and partially enclosed housing, manure collection
                    is accomplished by a slotted floor system. The manure drops through
                    the slots to a below-floor tank that provides either short-term  or long-
                    term  storage. In grazed areas, the manure is not collected.

              •      Sheep.  Sheep are primarily maintained on pasture and the manure is
                    not collected. Manure, from sheep kept in enclosed housing,  is usually
                    collected by a slotted floor system.

              •      Horses. Manure from horses housed in enclosed barn stalls, is most
                    often collected by shoveling.  The manure and bedding from stalls is
                    often removed daily and placed in stacks.

              •      Poultry. Poultry manure collection is generally related to the  type of
                    operation.  Poultry manure is generally dry (22-29 percent water).
                    Broiler, roaster, pullet, turkey, and  some duck houses usually raise the
                    birds on the house floor or in cages on beds of shavings, sawdust, rice
                    hulls, or peanut hulls. The manure is allowed to accumulate on the
                    floor where it is mixed with the bedding.

                    Many of the poultry broiler houses are only cleaned out completely
                    once a year.  Often, they only remove the top two inches or so between
                    flocks (approximately 5-6 flocks per year in broilers houses).   The
                    litter is removed with a cruster machine or a small tractor with a front
Sector Notebook Project                     46                            September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                     Summary of Operations, Impacts,
	& Pollution Prevention Opportunities
                    bucket. In layer and duck operations, the operator commonly collects
                    the manure by allowing it to drop through the wire-mesh cage, house
                    floor or slotted floor to a collection area where it is usually removed by
                    a hydraulic flush or belt scraper to a lagoon.  Manure is sometimes
                    composted, but can also be stored in stacking sheds, roofed storage
                    areas, outside and covered or uncovered, or occasionally in ponds until
                    it is ready for transport to a disposal or land application area.

              •      Goats. Goat manure is collected by manual shoveling from small pens
                    or stalls or scraped from larger containment enclosed, partially
                    enclosed, and open  areas.

              •      Swine.  Manure from swine in enclosed housing is often collected by
                    allowing it to drop through a slotted floor to a storage area, or it may
                    be collected by a manual or automated flush system.  Manure from
                    swine maintained in partially enclosed or open housing is usually
                    collected by scraping.

              In housing where animals are confined, frequent manure collection and
              transport are critical to livestock health.  Frequent removal of wastes reduces
              the naturally occurring volatilization of nitrogen as ammonia and the
              anaerobic digestion and the subsequent release of gases in the production
              buildings.  This reduction of pit gases, which can be  fatal, and odor improves
              the in-house environment and employee working conditions.

              Collection and transport of wastes by flushing is facilitated by slightly sloped,
              paved floors, alleys, or gutters.  Waste collected through slotted floors and
              wire-mesh cages is usually  transported from the below-floo^elow-cage
              collection area by a hydraulic (water) flush or may be scraped. The flushed
              manure and/or litter may be transported to a storage area or treatment lagoon.
              Two advantages of the flush system for collecting and transporting manure are
              that it is non-labor intensive and it provides a safe means to remove manure
              from confined spaces.  The flush, which can be initiated manually or cycled by
              timer, dosing system, tip tank, or other means, transports the manure from the
              collection area. Pumping is used to transport liquid and slurry wastes from
              collection pits to storage or treatment lagoons. High solid wastes are often
              collected and transported from the housing or feeding areas using tractors with
              scraper blades and/or bucket loaders. Manure collected in gutters is often
              transported by automatic scrapers. Some disadvantages of the flush system
              include a huge increase in the amount of manure, manure  cannot be
              transported very far because of the high cost versus low value, large use of
              water, problems with overloading when land-applied, and lagoons increasing
              the volatilization of nitrogen.
Sector Notebook Project                     47                            September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                    Summary of Operations, Impacts,
	& Pollution Prevention Opportunities
                    Potential Pollution Outputs and Environmental Impacts
                    For manure collection and transport, the pollution outputs can include
                    manure, urine, litter, bedding, and water. Additional outputs include
                    ammonia emissions from the waste, odors, hair and/or feathers,
                    pathogens, and heavy metals.

                    Wastewater that may leak from storage areas or transport processes
                    could result in surface water and groundwater contamination. While
                    waste flushing systems aid in removing manure from underground
                    storage basins, flush systems also generate additional manure
                    wastewater that must be managed.  Adding water also increases the
                    risk of a manure spill or runoff reaching groundwater or surface water.
                    Frequent collection and transport of manure and collection of surface
                    runoff assists in reducing the nutrient losses and thereby provides
                    greater nutrient availability during utilization. Between 40 to 60
                    percent of manure's nitrogen content may be lost through volatilization
                    of ammonia NH3 while the solid manure remains on an open lot5.
                    Other nonvolatile nutrients (e.g., organic nitrogen, phosphorus) may be
                    lost through leaching and surface runoff.

                    Pollution Prevention/Waste Minimization Opportunities
                    There are many techniques available to reduce pollution caused by
                    animal waste collection and transport activities.

                    •      Reduce water used in flushing systems. Alternative
                           technologies, such as low-flow waste flushing systems or
                           no-flow waste scraping systems, use less water than traditional
                            systems,  and decrease the amount of liquid that is sent to be
                           treated in the lagoon.

                    •      Recycle water for flushing. To minimize the amount of
                           wastewater generated, some means of recycling clarified
                           wastewater for flushing may be desirable. Separation of solids
                           from flush water can be used to reduce the solids in  the
                           recycled flush water.
5 Generally Accepted Agricultural and Management Practices for Manure Management and
Utilization, Table 5, Nitrogen Losses During Handling and Storage. Adopted by Michigan
Agriculture Commission, Lansing, Michigan, June 1997.
Sector Notebook Project                    48                            September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                     Summary of Operations, Impacts,
	& Pollution Prevention Opportunities
III.D.2. Storing & Treating Animal Wastes

              Waste Storage
              Storage is the temporary containment of manure and wastes.  Following
              collection, animal waste not immediately used may be stored in dry or wet
              form by various means and structures.  Broiler and beef wastes are stored in
              dry forms while dairy and swine wastes are stored in wet forms.

                    Manure stacks, bunkers, and stacking sheds are commonly used for dry
                    wastes.

              •      Pits, tanks, ponds, and lagoons for liquid or slurry wastes.

              Dry manure or litter is often placed in a covered or roofed area so that it does
              not come into contact with storm water. Storage may be short-term, usually a
              few days  to a few weeks, or long-term, which is usually less than one  year.
              The purpose of short-term storage is typically the retention of manure at the
              point of collection until transport to long-term storage or treatment. The
              purpose of long-term storage is retention of the  waste until utilization is
              possible and/or appropriate as determined by the field  condition, crop,
              weather, and other factors. Storage containment must be designed to hold the
              total volume of manure generated during the maximum length of time
              between applications.  Additionally, federally regulated CAFO liquid  storage
              units that accept storm water runoff must be sized to contain normal
              precipitation and runoff (less evaporation) for the storage period plus  a 25-
              year, 24-hour storm event flow and still provide adequate freeboard. Waste
              storage is not treatment and any treatment that occurs is incidental.

              Waste Treatment
              Following collection and/or storage, livestock production facilities may treat
              animal wastes. Treatment may include (1) solids separation by gravity,
              mechanical, or vegetative methods, and (2) stabilization of the waste by
              anaerobic lagoons, aerobic lagoons, or composting.

              •      Solids Separation. Solids separation is a physical treatment process
                    whereby a portion of the larger solids and fibers are removed from the
                    manure and can be reused.  Solids separation is often used preceding a
                    storage or a treatment lagoon to slow the rate of solids accumulation in
                    the basin.  Solids separation may be accomplished by settling basins,
                    mechanical separation, and vegetative filter strips.
Sector Notebook Project                     49                            September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                     Summary of Operations, Impacts,
	& Pollution Prevention Opportunities
                     S      Settling basin. Solids separation, in a settling basin, is achieved
                            by discharging the wastestream to a basin where the rate of
                            flow is low enough to cause gravity settling of the solids.

                     S      Mechanical solids separator. A mechanical solids separator unit
                            may be a static screen, vibrating screen, mechanical flat belt
                            (press), or roller press. In solids separation by static or
                            vibrating screen, the flow is generally passed across the screen
                            where the solids are captured and the liquid drops through. The
                            liquid portion from the settling basin and/or mechanical
                            separator is normally sent to storage or treatment or used to
                            irrigate cropland. The collected solids may be used for
                            bedding, feed, soil amendment, or compost.

                     Lagoons (Anaerobic or Aerobic). Lagoons can be anaerobic or aerobic
                     (non-mechanical and mechanical), although aerobic lagoons are used
                     less frequently.  In contrast to solids separation, lagoons are biological
                     treatment processes used to satisfy the oxygen demand (e.g., BOD,
                     COD) and volatilize nitrogen.  Lagoons can convert ammonia nitrogen
                     to nitrate, though this is extremely rare in animal treatment systems.

                     Lagoons vary in shape and size, but when properly constructed should
                     have sufficient volume to hold the waste during the treatment period
                     and contain normal precipitation and runoff (less evaporation) for the
                     storage period plus a 25-year, 24-hour storm event flow and still have
                     adequate freeboard.  Lagoons should be lined either with clay,
                     naturally occurring high clay content soils, concrete, or a synthetic
                     liner.

                     S      Anaerobic lagoons are commonly used to treat animal waste  —
                            particularly swine, but also cattle and layers. Because
                            anaerobic lagoons do not require free oxygen for treatment,
                            they are usually six to ten feet deep. Anaerobic systems are
                            sometimes operated with two lagoons in series allowing the
                            first lagoon to overflow via pipe or spillway to the second
                            lagoon.

                     S      Non-mechanical aerobic lagoons are shallow, usually two to
                            five feet deep and have a large surface area. This allows more
                            sunlight to reach the algae, which in turn produce oxygen
                            needed for treatment to occur. Non-mechanical aerobic
                            lagoons are rarely used in livestock applications because they
                            require large amounts of land.
Sector Notebook Project                     50                            September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                    Summary of Operations, Impacts,
	& Pollution Prevention Opportunities
                    S     Mechanical aerobic lagoons have higher construction costs due
                           to the aeration equipment. The aeration process is expensive to
                           operate; however, digestion occurs at a faster rate and fewer
                           odors are produced. Due to the additional construction and
                           operating costs, mechanical aerobic lagoons are uncommon.
                           Mechanically aerated lagoons are sometimes used to control
                           odors in odor-sensitive areas. Aerobic lagoons will  produce
                           more sludge than anaerobic lagoons and thus require additional
                           solids handling.

                    Composting. Composting is an aerobic biological process that converts
                    organic waste into a stable organic product that can be used onsite or
                    transported offsite for use. Composting reduces the volume of waste
                    and kills pathogens while preserving more of the nutrients for use by
                    crops. The composted material improves soil fertility, tilth  (tilled
                    earth), and water holding capacity. Composting is optimized by proper
                    ratios of carbon to nitrogen and carbon to phosphorus; moisture
                    content; temperature; pH; and time.

                    In the composting process, a bulking agent (e.g., wood chips, peanut
                    husks, animal bedding, or other materials) is  mixed with the manure to
                    provide the proper carbon ratios. Because of its high nutrient to
                    volume ratio, composted animal waste, or compost, is a beneficial
                    agricultural product.  Compost can be spread on paddocks,  cropland,
                    and nursery stock, or used for landscaping and home gardens. Note:
                    Many poultry and some swine operations  also use composting for
                    carcasses.

                    There are four general composting methods — static pile,  aerated static,
                    windrow, and in-vessel.

                    S     Static pile method is the simplest composting operation and
                           requires the least labor, but take the longest time to complete
                           the process. The static pile operation is not mixed or aerated.

                    S     Aerated static pile method is not mixed but usually has piping
                           to allow air to reach the interior of the pile.

                    S     Windrow method involves a long narrow pile that is regularly
                           mixed and aerated.
Sector Notebook Project                    51                            September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                     Summary of Operations, Impacts,
	& Pollution Prevention Opportunities
                    S     In-vessel method is an enclosed operation that allows accurate
                           control of moisture and other parameters, while containing the
                           odors.

                    Potential Pollution Outputs and Environmental Impacts
                    During waste storage, livestock production operations may produce
                    stack seepage and storm water runoff which should be directed to the
                    liquid storage ponds and lagoons.

                    During waste treatment, the pollution outputs and impacts include
                    releases of ammonia and other gases to the air, contaminated runoff to
                    surface waters, leaching resulting in groundwater contamination, and
                    odors. For lagoons, the major pollution output is wastewater that is
                    leached to groundwater through improperly lined lagoons; discharges
                    to surface waters due to overfilling and breakthroughs; or improper
                    transfer of wastes between facilities resulting in  surface water
                    contamination.
                    Pollution Prevention/Waste Minimization Opportunities
                    There are pollution prevention techniques that can be used during
                    animal waste storage and treatment activities.  These include:

                    •      Proper location. The location of manure storage systems
                           should consider proximity to water bodies, floodplains, and
                           other environmentally sensitive areas.

                    •      Cover wastes. During storage, place dry manure or litter in a
                           covered or roofed area so that it does not come into contact
                           with storm water. When composting, impacts can be
                           significantly reduced by maintaining the compost operation
                           under a roof or in an enclosed area.

                    •      Prevent spills by regular inspections and maintenance.  Spills
                           and overflows can be prevented by regular inspections and
                           preventive maintenance of lagoons; never filling lagoons
                           beyond treatment capacity; and removing sludge as needed.

                    •      Use vegetative filters. Vegetative filters are often used to
                           prevent runoff from lagoon or settling basin liquid overflow
                           from reaching a waterbody. As the water flows across the
                           vegetative strip, the solids drop out of the water, thus reducing
Sector Notebook Project                     52                            September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry
               Summary of Operations, Impacts,
            & Pollution Prevention Opportunities
                           the amount of solids that can impact the environment.
                           Vegetative filters are effective when located near the lagoon.

                           Build a reserve lagoon. While the installation of a reserve
                           lagoon may not be economically viable in all situations, the
                           potential release of lagoon contents to the environment can be
                           reduced by maintaining a spillway to a reserve lagoon.
                           Spillways provide for limited release of overflow, which
                           reduces the tendency for stress-related structural failure.  A
                           reserve lagoon is an integral component of a spillway system
                           that prevents contamination of surface water and groundwater.

                           Prevent overtopping. In preparation of rain events or to
                           prevent exceeding lagoon capacity,  livestock operations may
                           hire a contractor to  remove liquids from lagoons that are in
                           danger of overtopping.
III.D.3. Utilizing Animal Wastes
              Animal wastes (e.g., manure and urine)
              can be used as sources of plant
              nutrients. Land application is the most
              common, and usually most desirable,
              method of utilizing manure and
              wastewater because of the value of the
              nutrients and organic matter. Land
              application should be planned to ensure
              that the proper amount of nutrients are
              applied in a manner that does not
              adversely impact the environment or endanger public health.

              Considerations for appropriate land application should include:
            Benefits of Land Application of
            Animal Wastes. The benefits of
            proper application include
            improvement of the physical,
            chemical, and biological properties
            of the soil, as well as significant
            economic returns from the use of
            manure as a plant nutrient.
Sector Notebook Project
53
September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                     Summary of Operations, Impacts,
	& Pollution Prevention Opportunities
              Nutrient Management Plans6.  The primary purpose of nutrient management is
              to achieve the level of nutrients (e.g., nitrogen and phosphorus) required to
              grow the planned crop by balancing the nutrients that are already in the soil
              with those from other sources  (e.g., manure, biosolids, commercial fertilizers)
              that will be applied. At a minimum, nutrient management can help prevent
              the application of nutrients at rates that will exceed the capacity of the soil and
              the planned crops to assimilate nutrients and prevent pollution.

                     S     Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans (CNMPs). As
                           discussed in the USDA-EPA Unified National Strategy for
                           Animal Feeding Operations, all animal feeding operations
                           should develop and implement technically sound, economically
                           feasible, and site-specific CNMPs to minimize impacts to
                           water quality and public health.  In general, a CNMP identifies
                           actions or priorities that will be followed to meet clearly
                           defined nutrient management goals at an  agricultural operation.
                           CNMPs should address, as necessary, manure and wastewater
                           handling and storage, land application of manure and other
                           nutrient sources, site management, record keeping, and feed
                           management. CNMPs should also address other utilization
                           options for manure where the potential for environmentally
                           sound land application of manure is limited at the point where
                           it is generated.

              •       Timing and Methods of Application: The timing and methods of
                     application should minimize the loss of nutrients to groundwater or
                     surface water and the loss of nitrogen to the atmosphere. Manure and
                     wastewater application equipment should be calibrated to ensure that
                     the quantity of material being applied is what is planned. Care must be
                     taken when land-applying manure and wastewater to prevent it from
6 On May 24, 1999, USDA-NRCS released the Policy for Nutrient Management and the
revision to the conservation practice standard for Nutrient Management (Code 590).
NRCS' directive and supporting technical guide establishes policy for nutrient
management, sets forth guidance to NRCS personnel who provide nutrient management
technical assistance, and for the revision of the NRCS nutrient management conservation
practice standard. These two documents will provide the framework for all nutrient
management plans developed by NRCS for the agricultural community, which will be
tailored by State Conservationists within a two-year period. Of particular importance is
the new policy as it relates to producers that may not have sufficient land available to
spread manure at rates that utilize nitrogen and phosphorus and will, as a result, need to
pursue off-farm utilization options.
Sector Notebook Project                     54                            September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                     Summary of Operations, Impacts,
	& Pollution Prevention Opportunities
                     entering streams, other water bodies, or environmentally sensitive
                     areas.

              Manure can be land applied as solids, slurries, and liquids. The type of
              application equipment used depends on the manure moisture content. Box
              spreaders are typically used for dry manure, flail spreaders and injection for
              slurries, and irrigation and injection for liquids. Manure application may be
              by the livestock operation personnel or a custom applicator.

              •       Surface application. Box and flail spreaders apply the manure to the
                     soil surface as the spreader is pulled or driven across the field. If
                     surface applied, the manure may then be incorporated into the soil.
                     Incorporation within 24 hours greatly reduces ammonia volatilization
                     thus retaining nitrogen.

              •       Injection. Injected manure is incorporated into the soil as the
                     equipment is driven or pulled across the field.

              •       Irrigation. Many livestock operations with storage ponds or treatment
                     lagoons use irrigation systems, portable irrigation equipment, or hire
                     custom irrigators. Those establishments with field crops or silviculture
                     often use portable irrigation systems such as traveling guns or center
                     pivots.  Operations with several different fields or large acreage on
                     which to apply the waste typically use travelers.  Small acreage
                     establishments often use small-nozzle,  moderate-pressure, permanent
                     irrigation systems, because they provide low labor costs and more
                     uniform distribution of lagoon liquids.

                     Potential Pollution  Outputs and Environmental Impacts
                     While properly applied animal wastes provide nutrients and have little
                     negative environmental consequence, improper management and use
                     of animal wastes, such as overapplication, excessive spraying, or
                     application during rain events or on frozen ground, may result in
                     serious impacts to the environment.

                     The potential pollution outputs of land application include nutrient
                     runoff and leaching, which may cause surface water and groundwater
                     contamination, respectively.  Pollutants of concern include (1) nitrates
                     and nitrites that originate from oxidation of nitrogen contributed by the
                     manure, and (2) phosphorus.  Groundwater contamination is caused by
                     the nitrates leaching from the crop root zone into the groundwater
                     aquifer.  The amount of contaminated runoff depends on factors such
                     as what type of manure is used, how it is handled, type of crop being
Sector Notebook Project                     55                            September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                    Summary of Operations, Impacts,
	& Pollution Prevention Opportunities
                    grown, stage of growth, weather conditions, method of application,
                    and the amount of existing nutrients in the soil.
                    Overapplication or improper application of
                    animal waste can also lead to aesthetic
                    problems, including odors and vectors.  It
                    can also result in polluted runoff resulting
                    in contamination of surface waters. The
                    presence of ammonia, phosphates and
                    organic matter in surface waters can result
                    in increased biochemical oxygen demand      rats/mice.
Vectors are
defined as
organisms that
carry pathogens
from one host to
another, such as
insects or
                    and low levels of oxygen. This can cause
                    the death offish and other aquatic life forms. (Ohio State University,
                    Ohio Livestock Manure and Wastewater Guide)

                    Pollution Prevention/Waste Minimization Opportunities
                    In addition to land application, other manure use practices include:

                    • •    Processing and recycling through ruminant feeding programs.

                    • •    Biogas production as an energy source using anaerobic digester
                           technologies.

                    • •    Pyrolysis processes to produce electricity, chars (materials
                           scorched, burned, or reduced to charcoal), and industrial
                           petrochemicals.

                    • •    Microbial and algae production as an animal feed source.

                    • •    Aerobic degradation to produce composted products.

III.E. Other Management Issues

              Odor Control

              Odors are typically generated throughout the livestock production process.
              The odor from manure can vary depending on the type and consistency of the
              manure, how it is stored, and how and where it is applied.

                    Potential Pollution Outputs and Environmental Impacts
                    With enclosed or partially enclosed housing areas, odors and other
                    gases (e.g., methane, ammonia, and hydrogen sulfide gases) from
                    animal waste can be concentrated, potentially harming the health of the
Sector Notebook Project                    56                            September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                    Summary of Operations, Impacts,
	& Pollution Prevention Opportunities
                    animals and workers.  When the gases are released outside, the odor
                    can affect the surrounding areas and create nuisance problems for
                    neighbors.

                    Pollution Prevention/Waste Minimization Techniques
                    There are several ways livestock facilities can reduce odors resulting
                    from their operations and waste management practices. These include:

                    • •    Reduce methane emissions. One method of reducing methane
                           emissions from livestock is to supplement the animal's diet.
                           Scientists have found that supplementing a cow's diet with
                           substances  such as urea increases the animal's ability to digest
                           food. With improved digestion, less fermentation takes place
                           during digestion, and methane emissions per unit of forage
                           have been reduced 25-75 percent.  In addition, as digestion
                           improves, productivity also improves, as dairy cows produce
                           more milk and beef cattle fatten faster (Information Unit on
                           Climate Change, 1993).

                    • •    Follow BMPs for land application. Odors from land
                           application of manure can be minimized by following BMPs
                           that are designed to maximize the nutrients available to the soil
                           and crops.  Many of these BMPs may be required by state or
                           local  ordinance.  These practices include the following:

                           S      Spreading manure within agronomic rates.

                           S      When possible incorporating surface-applied manure
                                  within 24 hours.

                           S      Spreading early in the day as the air is warming and
                                  rising; this allows the applied waste to dry which
                                  reduces odor.

                           S      Avoiding spreading manure on windy days (i.e.,
                                  blowing towards the neighbor).

                           S      Avoiding spreading manure during holidays and
                                  weekends.

                           S      Avoiding spreading waste near heavily traveled roads.
Sector Notebook Project                    57                           September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                    Summary of Operations, Impacts,
	& Pollution Prevention Opportunities
              Managing Animal Carcasses

              Dead animals should be disposed of in a way that does not adversely affect
              ground or surface water or create public health concerns.  Composting,
              rendering, and other practices are common methods used to dispose of dead
              animals.

              As with rendering plants, dead animals may be processed for use as pet food,
              composted, buried, or incinerated. USDA and FDA regulations prohibit the
              use of mortalities as feed for animals that are to be consumed by humans.
              Note: State law or self-imposed industry standards may limit some of these
              options.  Because rendering must generally occur within 24 hours of an
              animal's death, it is helpful for the livestock production facility to establish
              rendering contacts in advance. Where this may not be possible,  freezer
              storage could be used until such time as the rendering facility can collect the
              animals for processing.  Some centrally located rendering facilities may
              provide pickup services to local livestock  operations.

              Animal carcass composting is another common method of handling poultry
              and small animal mortalities.  Carcass composting typically takes more time
              than manure  or yard waste composting, but has been shown to be an effective
              waste management approach. Many poultry and some swine operations use
              composting for carcasses. Livestock operations may use poultry compost
              sheds to dispose of their dead birds by mixing the dead birds with bedding and
              other materials.

              As with manure composting, the compost process requires a carbon source to
              provide the proper carbon/nitrogen ratio for the necessary bacterial processes.
              Sawdust and straw are typically used as a carbon source due to their small
              particle size,  ease of handling, absorbency, and high carbon content. Sawdust
              in excess of that required for the ideal carbon/nitrogen ratio is used in the
              initial  stages  of composting to provide adequate coverage of the carcasses.
              Sawdust also helps reduce odors from the composting process.

                    Potential Pollution Outputs and Environmental Impacts
                    Animal carcasses must be properly and quickly managed because they
                    are a  source of disease and can attract many vectors. Environmental
                    impacts of carcasses depend on the management method used.

                           Burial and/or pit disposal of carcasses in coarse textured soils
                           and in areas of a high water table may contribute nutrients to
                           groundwater.
Sector Notebook Project                     58                            September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                     Summary of Operations, Impacts,
	& Pollution Prevention Opportunities
                     •      Animal carcasses that are disposed of above ground or
                           insufficiently covered can cause aesthetic and potential human
                           health impacts including odor generation and vector attraction,
                           such as flies and mice.

                           Specifically, poultry compost houses can be a potential source
                           of pollution if not managed properly (e.g., kept at the right
                           temperature, moisture content, etc.) because a leachate can
                           form and leak from the compost house.

                     •      The rendering process generates wastewater that must be
                           managed according to the rendering facility's NPDES permit or
                           pretreatment permit.

                     Pollution Prevention/Waste Utilization  Techniques
                     There are several techniques that can be used to minimize wastes
                     resulting from animal mortalities. As described above, rendering or
                     composting are considered disposal methods that prevent pollution.  If
                     these are not available, burying carcasses can be another option.  The
                     impact of burying carcasses can be minimized by burying them deep
                     below the surface of the ground, well away and  downgrade from any
                     source of drinking water, and covered with a generous supply of
                     quicklime to reduce soil pH before fill dirt is added.  If the carcasses
                     must be disposed of onsite, it is preferable to have:

                     •      A burial area at least 100 meters away from houses and
                           watercourses
                     •      The pit base at least 38 inches above the level of the watertable
                           Heavy soil of low permeability and good stability
                     •      Good access to the site for earthmoving machinery and stock
                           transport unless the stock are to be walked in for slaughter
                     It is important to avoid sites sloping     -,  ,   . ,  ,,,   ,
                     toward watercourses and areas that             fs bemgVased
                                                          out. In fact, some states
                                                          prohibit the practice,
                                                          except under the most
                                                          extreme circumstances.
are likely to drain to surface water.
Many states may have more strict
statutes regulating the burial of dead
animals.  For example, Oregon
requires that the animal carcasses be
buried to such a depth that no part of
them are nearer than four feet to the natural surface of the ground and
they are covered with quicklime and at least four feet of soil.
Sector Notebook Project                     59                            September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                    Summary of Operations, Impacts,
	& Pollution Prevention Opportunities
III.F. Pest Control

              Within a livestock production establishment, pesticides may be used for a
              variety of purposes. They may be applied directly to livestock or to structures,
              such as barns and housing units, to control pests (e.g., parasites, vectors).
              Pesticides can also be used to control predators. Vectors are defined as
              organisms that carry pathogens from one host to another, such as insects or
              rats/mice.

              Livestock. Commonly, pesticides are applied directly to livestock using high-
              pressure and low-pressure sprayers, mist application equipment (i.e.,
              fumigation and foggers), and dipping vats. In addition, pesticides may be
              added to ear tags and to gates through which animals commonly pass (i.e.,
              gate wipes/brushes).  Spraying or fogging animals, especially high-pressure
              spraying, allows penetration into fur and wool to control lice, mange, wool
              maggots, and other parasites and vectors.  Portable dipping vats are used for
              treating external parasites, especially of sheep and swine.

              Structures.  Pesticides may also be applied directly to or used in and around
              structures, such as barns or other types of housing units.  Sprayers and foggers
              are the most commonly used methods to apply insecticides, rodenticides, and
              disinfectants, although other methods may be used, such as injected termite
              treatments, rat/mouse traps, or other types of insect traps.  Such applications
              are used to control flies, beetles, and manure larvicides, among others.

              Predators. Some livestock operations, especially sheep and goat operations,
              experience problems with predators. Historically, these problems have been
              addressed by operators through various methods to scare  away potential
              predators. Such methods included scarecrows or bells. Recently, another
              method, livestock protection collars, have been developed to help combat
              predators. Livestock protection collars are placed around the necks of the
              livestock and contain a rubber bladder filled with a pesticide. When predators,
              primarily coyotes, attack livestock they go for the throat, puncture the bladder
              on the collar,  and ingest the pesticide.  The livestock are unhurt, but the
              coyotes ultimately die from the ingested pesticide.

                    Potential Pollution  Outputs and Environmental Impacts
                     The potential environmental impacts from pesticide application are
                    runoff or leaching to surface water or groundwater, spills to surface
                    waters, potential human and animal exposure, overtolerance levels on
                     animals and products, and  soil contamination that could leave land
                    unproductive. These environmental  impacts  may all occur  if pesticides
Sector Notebook Project                     60                             September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                     Summary of Operations, Impacts,
	& Pollution Prevention Opportunities
                     are not applied in accordance with the label directions. The degree of
                     environmental impact depends on the application method.

                           The application of pesticides using spray or fogger systems is
                           more likely to involve releases to air, which may result in
                           human and excessive animal exposure.

                           If not disposed of properly, liquids from dipping vats may
                           contaminate both surface water and groundwater.

                     •      If not protected with backflow prevention devices, pesticides
                           applied through spray systems that are connected to water
                           supplies can siphon back to the water source and potentially
                           contaminate drinking water systems.

                           In addition to runoff and leaching, spills of pesticides may also
                           negatively impact the environment.  The impacts are the same
                           as for runoff and leaching, but may be more significant since
                           the spilled materials will be concentrated in one specific area.
                           Also, improperly cleaned and disposed pesticide containers
                           may cause releases to the soil and/or surface waters.

                     Pesticides are both suspected and known for causing immediate and
                     delayed-onset health hazards for humans. If exposed to pesticides,
                     humans may experience adverse effects, such as nausea, respiratory
                     distress, or more severe symptoms up to and including death.  To help
                     reduce this potential exposure, tolerance levels have been established
                     for residues on agricultural products. Animals  and birds impacted by
                     pesticides can experience similar illnesses or develop other types of
                     physical distress.  Following label directions for application, protective
                     gear, and disposal will help ensure such environmental impacts do not
                     occur.

                     Pollution Prevention/Waste Minimization Opportunities
                     Environmental impacts from pesticides can be minimized by following
                     the label directions and preventing or minimizing their use wherever
                     possible. Pesticide use accounts for a substantial  portion of farm
                     production costs.  By reducing their use, agricultural establishments
                     can not only reduce production costs, but also reduce environmental
                     impacts of their operations.  Pesticide use and impact can be
                     minimized by using general good housekeeping practices, integrated
                     pest management, and good management practices.  Examples of
                     these are presented below.
Sector Notebook Project                     61                            September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                    Summary of Operations, Impacts,
	& Pollution Prevention Opportunities
                           Integrated Pest Management. Integrated pest management
                           (IPM) is an effective and environmentally sensitive approach to
                           pest management that relies on a combination of common-
                           sense practices.  IPM programs use current, comprehensive
                           information on the life cycles of pests and their interaction with
                           the environment. This information, in combination with
                           available pest control methods, is used to manage pest damage
                           by the most economical means, and with the least possible
                           hazard to people, property, and the environment. Examples of
                           IPM in the livestock production industry could include
                           maintaining structures (e.g., plug holes, place stripping around
                           doors and windows), good housekeeping in barns and other
                           structures, rodent and insect traps, and use of predators (e.g.,
                           certain insects, snakes).  IPM can involve the use of pesticides.
                           In such cases, the IPM plan should indicate when a pesticide is
                           needed, and its selection is based on persistence, toxicity, and
                           leaching and runoff potential such that the most
                           environmentally friendly pesticide is used.

                           Good Management Practices. In addition to use consistent
                           with the label, there are other general management practices
                           associated with pesticides that can help reduce their
                           environmental impact.  Such practices include:

                           S      Buy only the amount needed for a year or a growing
                                  season.

                           S      Minimize the amount of product kept in storage.

                           S      Calculate how much diluted pesticide will be needed
                                  for a job  and mix only that amount.

                           S      Apply pesticides with properly-calibrated equipment.

                           S      Purchase pesticide products packaged in such a way as
                                  to minimize disposal  problems.

                           S      Work with the state to locate a pesticide handler who
                                  can use the excess pesticide.

                           S      Return unused product to the dealer, formulator, or
                                  manufacturer.
Sector Notebook Project                    62                            September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                     Summary of Operations, Impacts,
	& Pollution Prevention Opportunities
                           S      Implement setbacks from wellheads for application and
                                  storage.

                           S      If possible, choose nonleachable pesticides labeled for
                                  the pest.

III.G.  Maintaining and Repairing Agricultural Machinery and Vehicles

              Day-to-day maintenance and repair activities keep agricultural machinery and
              vehicles safe and reliable. Maintenance activities include oil and filter
              changes, battery replacement, and repairs, including metal machining.

                    Potential Pollution Outputs and Environmental Impacts
                    The wastes from maintenance and repair activities can include used
                    oil, spent fluids, spent batteries, metal machining wastes, spent organic
                    solvents, and tires.  These wastes have the potential to be released to
                    the environment if not handled properly, stored in secure areas with
                    secondary containment, protected from exposure to weather, and
                    properly disposed of. If released to the environment, the impact of
                    these releases can be contamination of surface waters, groundwater,
                    and soils, as well as toxic releases to the atmosphere.  Groundwater
                    pollution can also result from discharges of wastes to Class V wells.

                    Pollution Prevention/Waste Minimization Opportunities
                    Preventive maintenance programs can minimize waste generation,
                    increase equipment life, and minimize the probability of significant
                    impacts and accidents.  Where the wastes cannot be eliminated, safe
                    handling and recycling can minimize environmental impacts. The
                    following presents pollution prevention/waste minimization
                    opportunities for each type of waste.

                    Used Oil. The impact of oil changes can be minimized by preventing
                    releases of used oil to the environment, and recycling or reusing used
                    oil whenever possible.  Spills can be prevented by using containment
                    around used oil containers, keeping floor drains  closed when oil is
                    being drained, and by training employees on spill prevention
                    techniques. Oil that is contained rather than released can be recycled,
                    thus saving money, and protecting the environment.

                    Recycling used oil requires equipment like a drip table with a used oil
                    collection bucket to collect oil dripping from parts. Drip pans can be
                    placed under machinery and vehicles awaiting repairs to capture any
Sector Notebook Project                     63                             September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry
               Summary of Operations, Impacts,
            & Pollution Prevention Opportunities
                     leaking fluids.  By using
                     catch pans or buckets,
                     rather than absorbent
                     materials to contain leaks
                     or spills of used oil, the
                     used oil can be more easily
                     recycled.  To encourage
                     recycling, the publication
                     "How To Set Up A Local
                     Program To Recycle Used
                     Oil" is available at no cost
                     from the RCRA/Superfund
                     Hotline at 1-800-424-9346
                     or 1-703-412-9810.
       Proper Disposal of Oil-Based Fluids.
       Spent petroleum-based fluids and solids
       should be sent to a recycling center
       whenever possible. Solvents that are
       hazardous waste must not be mixed with
       used oil or, under RCRA regulations, the
       entire mixture may be considered
       hazardous waste. Non-listed hazardous
       wastes can be mixed with waste oil, and as
       long as the resulting mixture is not
       hazardous, can be handled as waste oil.
       All used drip pans and containers should
       be properly labeled.
                     Spent Fluids. Farm machinery and vehicles require regular changing
                     of fluids, including oil, coolant, and others.  To minimize releases to
                     the environment, these fluids should be drained and replaced in areas
                     where there are no connections to storm drains or municipal sewers.
                     Minor spills should be cleaned up prior to reaching drains.  Used fluid
                     should be collected and stored in separate containers. Fluids can often
                     be recycled. For example, brake fluid, transmission fluid, and gear oil
                     are recyclable.  Some liquids are able to be legally mixed with used
                     motor oil which, in turn, can be reclaimed.

                     During the process of engine maintenance, spills of fluids are likely to
                     occur. The "dry shop" principle encourages spills to be cleaned
                     immediately so that spilled fluid will not evaporate to air, be
                     transported to soil, or be discharged to waterways or sewers.  The
                     following techniques help prevent and minimize the  impact of spills:

                     • •    Collect leaking or dripping fluids in designated drip pans or
                            containers. Keep all fluids separated so they  may be properly
                            recycled.

                     • •    Keep a designated drip pan under the vehicle while  unclipping
                            hoses, unscrewing filters, or removing other parts.  The drip
                            pan prevents splattering of fluids and keeps chemicals from
                            penetrating the shop floor or outside area where the
                            maintenance is occurring.

                     • •    Immediately transfer used fluids to proper containers. Never
                            leave drip pans or other open containers unattended.
Sector Notebook Project
64
September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                    Summary of Operations, Impacts,
	& Pollution Prevention Opportunities
                     Radiator fluids are often acceptable to antifreeze recyclers.  This
                     includes fluids used to flush out radiators during cleaning. Reusing the
                     flushing fluid minimizes waste discharges. If a licensed recycler does
                     not accept the spent flushing fluids, consider changing to another
                     brand of fluid that can be recycled.

                     Batteries. Farm operators have three options for managing used
                     batteries: recycling  through a supplier, recycling directly though a
                     battery reclamation facility, or direct disposal. Most suppliers now
                     accept spent batteries at the time of new battery purchase. While some
                     waste batteries must be handled as hazardous waste, lead acid batteries
                     are not considered hazardous waste as long as they are recycled.  In
                     general, recycling batteries may reduce the amount of hazardous waste
                     stored at a farm, and thus reduce the farm's responsibilities under
                     RCRA.

                     The following best management practices are recommended to prevent
                     used batteries from impacting the environment prior to disposal:

                     •  •    Place on pallets and label by battery type (e.g., lead-acid,
                            nickel, and cadmium).

                     •  •    Protect them from the weather with a tarp, roof, or other means.

                     •  •    Store them on an open rack or in a watertight secondary
                            containment unit to prevent leaks.

                     •  •    Inspect them for cracks and leaks as they come to the farm. If a
                            battery is dropped, treat it as if it is cracked. Acid residue from
                            cracked or leaking batteries is likely to be hazardous waste
                            under RCRA because it is likely to demonstrate the
                            characteristic of corrosivity, and may contain lead and other
                            metals.

                     •  •    Neutralize acid spills and dispose of the resulting waste as
                            hazardous if it still exhibits a characteristic of a hazardous
                            waste.

                     •  •    Avoid skin contact with leaking or damaged batteries.

                     Machine Shop Wastes. The major hazardous wastes from metal
                     machining are waste cutting oils, spent machine coolant,  and
                     degreasing solvents. Scrap metal can also be a component of
Sector Notebook Project                     65                             September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                     Summary of Operations, Impacts,
	& Pollution Prevention Opportunities
                     hazardous waste produced at a machine shop. Material substitution
                     and recycling are the two best means to reduce the volume of these
                     wastes.

                     The preferred method of reducing the amount of waste cutting oils and
                     degreasing solvents is to substitute with water-soluble cutting oils. If
                     non-water-soluble oils must be used, recycling waste cutting oil
                     reduces the potential environmental impact.  Machine coolant can be
                     recycled, either by an outside recycler, or through a number  of in-
                     house systems. Coolant recycling is most easily implemented when a
                     standardized type of coolant is used throughout the shop.  Reuse and
                     recycling of solvents also is easily achieved, although it is generally
                     done by a permitted recycler. Most shops collect scrap metals from
                     machining operations and sell these to metal recyclers. Metal chips
                     which have been  removed from the coolant by filtration can be
                     included in the scrap metal collection.  Wastes should be carefully
                     segregated to facilitate reuse and recycling.

III.H.  Fuel Use and Fueling Activities

              Fuel is used to operate agricultural machinery, equipment, and vehicles that
              are used throughout  the livestock operation. Agricultural machinery and
              vehicles are typically fueled using an above ground fueling dispenser that is
              connected to an above ground or underground fuel tank.

                     Potential Pollution Outputs and Environmental Impacts
                     Agricultural  machinery and vehicles that use fuel most likely emit
                     pollutants to  the atmosphere. The activity of fueling itself can emit air
                     pollutants, and spills of fuel can cause water, soil and groundwater
                     contamination. Underground fueling systems that are not monitored or
                     maintained properly can leak into the surrounding soils and  eventually
                     contaminate  groundwater.

                     Pollution Prevention/Waste Minimization  Opportunities
                     Properly maintaining fuel tanks, lines, and fueling systems can
                     substantially reduce the probability of accidental fuel spills or leaks.
                     All leaking pipe joints, nozzle connections,  and  any damage to the
                     fueling hose  (e.g., kinks, crushing,  breaks in the carcass, bulges,
                     blistering, soft spots at the coupling, deep cracks or cuts, spots wet
                     with fuel, or  excessive wear) should be fixed immediately to reduce
                     the amount of pollution to the environment.  Spill and overflow
                     protection devices can be installed to prevent fuel spills and secondary
Sector Notebook Project                     66                            September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                     Summary of Operations, Impacts,
	& Pollution Prevention Opportunities
                     containment can be used to contain spills or leaks. Additional pollution
                     prevention techniques for fueling include the following:

                     • •    Inspect fueling equipment daily to ensure that all components
                            are in satisfactory condition. While refueling, check for leaks.

                     • •    If refueling occurs at night, make sure it is carried out in a well-
                            lighted area.

                     • •    Never refuel during maintenance as it might provide a source
                            of ignition to fuel vapors.

                     • •    Do not leave a fuel nozzle unattended during fueling or wedge
                            or tie the nozzle trigger in the open position.

                     • •    Discourage topping off of fuel tanks.
Sector Notebook Project                      67                            September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                    Summary of Operations, Impacts,
	& Pollution Prevention Opportunities
                  THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Sector Notebook Project                    68                            September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                         Federal Statutes and Regulations:
	General Overview

IV. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE FEDERAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS

              This section discusses the federal regulations that may apply to this sector.  The
              purpose of this section is to highlight and briefly describe the applicable federal
              requirements, and to provide citations for more detailed information.  The three
              following sections are included:

                     Section IV. A contains a general overview of major statutes
              •      Section IV.B contains a list of regulations specific to this industry
              •      Section IV.C contains a list of pending and proposed regulatory
                     requirements.

              The descriptions within  Section IV are intended solely for general information.
              Depending upon the nature or scope of the activities at a particular facility, these
              summaries may or may  not necessarily describe all applicable environmental
              requirements. Moreover, they do not constitute formal interpretations or
              clarifications of the statutes and regulations. For further information, readers should
              consult the Code of Federal Regulations and other state or local regulatory
              agencies.  EPA Hotline contacts are also provided for each major statute.  For
              specific agricultural information, contact The National Agricultural Compliance
              Assistance Center at (888) 663-2155 or visit the website at
              http://www.epa.gov/agriculture.

IV.A.  General Description of Major Statutes

       Clean Water Act

              The primary objective of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
              1972, commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act (CWA), is to restore and
              maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's surface
              waters. Pollutants regulated under the CWA are classified as either "toxic"
              pollutants; "conventional" pollutants, such as biochemical oxygen demand (BOD),
              total suspended solids (TSS), fecal coliform, oil and grease, and pH; or "non-
              conventional" pollutants, including any pollutant not identified as either conventional
              or priority.

              The CWA regulates both direct and "indirect" dischargers  (those who discharge to
              publicly owned treatment works).  The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
              System (NPDES) permitting program (CWA ง402) controls direct discharges into
              navigable waters.  Direct discharges or "point source" discharges are from sources
              such as pipes and sewers. NPDES permits, issued by either EPA or an authorized
              state (EPA has authorized 43 states and 1 territory to administer the NPDES
              program), contain industry-specific, technology-based water quality limits and
Sector Notebook Project                      69                              September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                           Federal Statutes and Regulations:
	General Overview

               establish pollutant monitoring and reporting requirements. A facility that proposes to
               discharge into the nation's waters must obtain a permit prior to initiating a discharge.
               A permit applicant must provide quantitative analytical data identifying the types of
               pollutants present in the facility's effluent. The permit will then set forth the
               conditions and effluent limitations under which a facility may make a discharge.

               Water quality-based discharge limits are based on federal or state water quality
               criteria or standards, that were designed to protect designated uses of surface
               waters, such as supporting aquatic life or recreation. These standards, unlike the
               technology-based standards, generally do not take into account technological
               feasibility or costs.  Water quality criteria and standards vary from state to state,
               and site to site, depending on the use classification of the receiving body of water.
               Most states follow EPA guidelines which propose aquatic life and human health
               criteria for many of the 126 priority pollutants.

               Storm Water Discharges
               In 1987 the CWA was amended to require EPA to establish a program to address
               storm water discharges. In response, EPA promulgated NPDES permitting
               regulations for storm water discharges. These regulations require that  facilities with
               the following types of storm water discharges, among others, apply for an NPDES
               permit: (1) a discharge associated with industrial activity; (2) a discharge from a
               large or medium municipal storm sewer system; or (3) a discharge which EPA or
               the state determines to contribute to a violation of a water quality standard or is a
               significant contributor of pollutants to waters of the United States.

               The term "storm water discharge associated with industrial activity" means a storm
               water discharge from one of 11 categories of industrial activity defined at 40  CFR
               ง122.26. Six  of the categories are defined by SIC codes while the other five are
               identified through narrative descriptions of the regulated industrial activity.  If the
               primary SIC code of the facility is one of those identified in the regulations, the
               facility is subject to the storm water permit  application requirements. If any activity
               at a facility is covered by one of the five narrative categories, storm water
               discharges from those areas where the activities occur are subject to storm water
               discharge permit application requirements.

               Those facilities/activities that are subject to storm water discharge permit
               application requirements are identified below. To determine whether  a particular
               facility falls within one of these categories, the regulation  should be consulted.
Sector Notebook Project                        70                                September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                          Federal Statutes and Regulations:
	General Overview

               Category i: Facilities subject to storm water effluent guidelines, new source
               performance standards, or toxic pollutant effluent standards.

               Category ii: Facilities classified as SIC 24-lumber and wood products (except
               wood kitchen cabinets);  SIC 26-paper and allied products (except paperboard
               containers and products); SIC 28-chemicals and allied products (except drugs and
               paints); SIC 29-petroleum refining; SIC 311-leather tanning and finishing; SIC 32
               (except 323)-stone, clay, glass, and concrete; SIC  33-primary metals; SIC 3441-
               fabricated structural metal; and SIC 373-ship and boat building and repairing.

               Category iii: Facilities classified as SIC 10-metal mining; SIC 12-coal mining;
               SIC 13-oil and gas extraction; and SIC  14-nonmetallic mineral mining.

               Category iv: Hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities.

               Category v:  Landfills, land application sites, and open dumps that receive or have
               received industrial wastes.

               Category vi: Facilities  classified as SIC 5015-used motor vehicle parts; and SIC
               5093-automotive scrap and waste material recycling facilities.

               Category vii:  Steam electric power generating facilities.

               Category viii:  Facilities classified as  SIC 40-railroad transportation; SIC 41-local
               passenger transportation; SIC 42-trucking and warehousing (except public
               warehousing and storage); SIC 43-U.S. Postal  Service; SIC 44-water
               transportation; SIC 45-transportation by air; and SIC 5171-petroleum bulk storage
               stations and terminals.

               Category ix: Sewage treatment works.

               Category x:  Construction activities except operations that result in the disturbance
               of less than five acres of total land area.

               Category xi: Facilities  classified as SIC 20-food  and kindred products; SIC 21-
               tobacco products; SIC 22-textile mill products; SIC 23-apparel related products;
               SIC 2434-wood kitchen cabinets manufacturing; SIC 25-furniture and fixtures;
               SIC 265-paperboard containers and boxes; SIC 267-converted paper and
               paperboard products; SIC 27-printing, publishing, and allied industries; SIC 283-
               drugs; SIC 285-paints, varnishes, lacquer, enamels, and allied products; SIC 30-
               rubber and plastics; SIC  31-leather and leather products (except leather and
               tanning and finishing); SIC 323-glass products;  SIC 34-fabricated metal products
               (except fabricated structural metal); SIC 35-industrial and commercial machinery
Sector Notebook Project                       71                               September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                         Federal Statutes and Regulations:
	General Overview

              and computer equipment; SIC 36-electronic and other electrical equipment and
              components; SIC 37-transportation equipment (except ship and boat building and
              repairing); SIC 38-measuring, analyzing, and controlling instruments; SIC 39-
              miscellaneous manufacturing industries; and SIC 4221-4225-public warehousing
              and storage.

              Pretreatment Program
              Another type of discharge that is regulated by the CWA is one that goes to a
              publicly owned treatment works (POTW). The national pretreatment program
              (CWA ง 307(b)) controls the indirect discharge of pollutants to POTWs by
              "industrial users." Facilities regulated under ง307(b) must meet certain
              pretreatment standards. The goal of the pretreatment program is to protect
              municipal wastewater treatment plants from damage that may occur when
              hazardous, toxic, or other wastes are discharged into a sewer system and to protect
              the quality of sludge generated by these plants.

              EPA has developed technology-based standards for industrial users of POTWs.
              Different standards apply to existing and new sources within each category.
              "Categorical" pretreatment standards applicable to an industry on a nationwide
              basis are developed by EPA. In addition, another kind of pretreatment  standard,
              "local limits," are developed by the POTW in order to assist the POTW in
              achieving the effluent limitations in its NPDES permit.

              Regardless of whether a state is authorized to implement either the NPDES or the
              pretreatment program, if it develops its own program, it may enforce requirements
              more stringent than federal standards.

              Wetlands
              Wetlands, commonly called swamps, marshes, fens, bogs, vernal pools,  playas, and
              prairie potholes, are a subset of "waters of the United States," as defined in Section
              404 of the CWA. The placement of dredge and fill material into wetlands and other
              water bodies (i.e., waters of the United States) is regulated by the U.S. Army
              Corps of Engineers (Corps) under 33 CFR Part 328.  The Corps regulates
              wetlands by administering the CWA Section 404 permit program for activities that
              impact wetlands. EPA's authority under Section 404 includes  veto power of
              Corps permits, authority to interpret statutory exemptions and jurisdiction,
              enforcement actions, and delegating the Section 404 program to the states.

              EPA 's Office of Water, at (202) 260-5700, will direct callers with questions
              about the CWA to the appropriate EPA  office.  EPA also maintains a
              bibliographic database of Office of Water publications which can be accessed
Sector Notebook Project                      72                             September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                          Federal Statutes and Regulations:
	General Overview

               through the Ground Water and Drinking Water resource center, at (202) 260-
               7786.

               Oil Pollution Prevention Regulation
               Section 311(b) of the CWA prohibits the discharge of oil, in such quantities as may
               be harmful, into the navigable waters of the United States and adjoining shorelines.
               The EPA Discharge of Oil regulation, 40 CFR Part 110, provides information
               regarding these discharges. The Oil Pollution Prevention regulation, 40 CFR Part
               112, under the authority of Section 31 l(j) of the CWA, requires regulated facilities
               to prepare and implement Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC)
               plans. The intent of a SPCC plan is to prevent the discharge of oil from onshore
               and offshore non-transportation-related facilities. In 1990 Congress passed the Oil
               Pollution Act which amended Section 31 l(j) of the CWA to require facilities that
               because of their location could reasonably be expected to cause "substantial harm"
               to the environment by a discharge of oil to develop and implement Facility
               Response Plans (FRP).  The intent of a FRP is to provide for planned responses to
               discharges of oil.

               A facility is SPCC-regulated if the facility,  due to its location, could reasonably be
               expected to discharge oil into or upon the navigable waters of the United Stated or
               adjoining shorelines, and the facility meets one of the following criteria regarding oil
               storage: (1) the capacity of any aboveground storage tank exceeds 660 gallons, or
               (2) the total aboveground storage capacity exceeds 1,320 gallons, or (3) the
               underground storage capacity exceeds 42,000 gallons. 40 CFR ง 112.7 contains
               the format and content requirements for a SPCC plan. In New Jersey, SPCC
               plans can be combined with DPCC plans, required by the state, provided there is
               an appropriate cross-reference index to the requirements of both  regulations at the
               front of the plan.

               According to the FRP regulation, a facility can cause "substantial  harm" if it meets
               one of the following criteria: (1) the facility has a total oil storage capacity greater
               than or equal to 42,000 gallons and transfers oil over water to or from vessels; or
               (2) the facility has a total oil storage capacity greater than or equal to 1  million
               gallons and meets any one of the following conditions: (i) does not have adequate
               secondary containment, (ii) a discharge could cause "injury" to fish and wildlife and
               sensitive environments, (iii) shut down a public drinking water intake, or (iv) has
               had a reportable oil spill greater than or equal to 10,000 gallons in the past 5 years.
               Appendix F of 40 CFR Part 112 contains the format and content requirements for
               a FRP.  FRPs that meet EPA's requirements can be  combined with U.S. Coast
               Guard FRPs or other contingency plans, provided there is an appropriate cross-
               reference index to the requirements of all applicable regulations at the front of the
               plan.
Sector Notebook Project                       73                               September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                         Federal Statutes and Regulations:
	General Overview

              For additional information regarding SPCC plans, contact EPA 's RCRA,
              Superfimd, andEPCRA Hotline, at (800) 424-9346. Additional documents and
              resources can be obtained from the hotline's homepage at
              www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hotline.  The hotline operates weekdays from 9:00
              a.m. to 6:00 p.m., EST, excluding federal holidays.

       Coastal Zone Management Act

              The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) encourages states/tribes to preserve,
              protect, develop, and where possible, restore or enhance valuable natural coastal
              resources such as wetlands, floodplains, estuaries, beaches, dunes, barrier islands,
              and coral reefs, as well as the fish and wildlife using those habitats. It includes areas
              bordering the Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic Oceans, Gulf of Mexico, Long Island
              Sound, and Great Lakes. A unique feature of this law is that participation by
              states/tribes is voluntary.

              In the Coastal Zone Management Act Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA) of
              1990,  Congress identified nonpoint source pollution as a major factor in the
              continuing degradation of coastal waters. Congress also recognized that effective
              solutions to nonpoint source pollution could be implemented at the state/tribe and
              local levels.  In CZARA, Congress added Section 6217 (16 U.S.C. ง 1455b),
              which calls upon states/tribes with federally-approved coastal zone management
              programs to develop and implement coastal nonpoint pollution control programs.
              The Section 6217 program  is administered at the federal level jointly by EPA and
              the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA).

              Section 6217 (g) called for EPA, in consultation with other agencies, to develop
              guidance on "management  measures" for sources of nonpoint source pollution in
              coastal waters.  Under Section 6217, EPA is responsible for developing technical
              guidance to assist states/tribes in designing coastal nonpoint pollution control
              programs.  On January 19, 1993, EPA issued its Guidance Specifying
              Management Measures For Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters,
              which addresses five major source categories of nonpoint pollution: (1) urban
              runoff, (2) agriculture runoff, (3) forestry runoff, (4) marinas and recreational
              boating,  and (5) hydromodification.

              Additional information on coastal zone management may be obtained from
              EPA 's Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds at
              http://www.epa.gov/owow or from the Watershed Information Network at
              http://www.epa.gov/win.  The NOAA website at
              http://www.nos.noaa.gov/ocrm/czm/also contains additional information on
              coastal zone management.
Sector Notebook Project                      74                             September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                          Federal Statutes and Regulations:
	General Overview

       Safe Drinking Water Act

              The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) mandates that EPA establish regulations to
              protect human health from contaminants in drinking water.  The law authorizes EPA
              to develop national drinking water standards and to create  a joint federal-state
              system to ensure compliance with these standards.  The SDWA also directs EPA
              to protect underground sources of drinking water through the control of
              underground injection of fluid wastes.

              EPA has developed primary and secondary drinking water standards under its
              SDWA authority.  EPA and authorized states enforce the primary drinking water
              standards, which are, contaminant-specific concentration limits that apply to certain
              public drinking water supplies. Primary drinking water standards consist of
              maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs), which are non-enforceable
              health-based goals, and maximum contaminant levels (MCLs), which are
              enforceable limits set generally as close to MCLGs as possible, considering cost
              and feasibility of attainment.

              The SDWA Underground Injection Control (UIC) program (40 CFR Parts
              144-148) is a permit program which protects underground  sources of drinking
              water by regulating five classes of injection wells. UIC permits include design,
              operating, inspection, and monitoring requirements. Wells used to inject hazardous
              wastes must also comply with RCRA corrective action standards in order to be
              granted a RCRA permit, and must meet applicable RCRA  land disposal restrictions
              standards. The UIC permit program is often state/tribe-enforced, since EPA has
              authorized many states/tribes to administer the program. Currently, EPA shares the
              UIC permit program responsibility in seven states and completely runs the program
              in 10 states and on all tribal lands.

              The SDWA also provides for a federally-implemented Sole Source Aquifer
              program, which prohibits federal funds from being expended on projects that may
              contaminate the sole or principal source of drinking water for a given area, and for
              a state-implemented Wellhead Protection program, designed to protect drinking
              water wells and drinking water recharge  areas.

              The SDWA Amendments of 1996 require states to develop and implement source
              water assessment programs (SWAPs) to  analyze existing and potential threats to
              the quality of the public drinking water throughout the state. Every state is required
              to submit a program to EPA and to complete all assessments within 3 !/2 years of
              EPA approval of the program. SWAPs include: (1) delineating the source water
              protection area, (2) conducting a contaminant source inventory, (3) determining the
              susceptibility of the public water supply to
Sector Notebook Project                       75                              September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                         Federal Statutes and Regulations:
	General Overview

              contamination from the inventories sources, and (4) releasing the results of the
              assessments to the public.

              EPA 's Safe Drinking Water Hotline, at (800) 426-4791, answers questions
              and distributes guidance pertaining to SDWA standards.  The Hotline operates
              from 9:00 a.m. through 5:30 p.m., EST, excluding federal holidays. Visit the
              website at www.epa.gov/ogwdw for additional material.

       Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

              The Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA), as amended by the Resource
              Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976, addresses solid and hazardous
              waste management activities. The Act is commonly referred to as RCRA.  The
              Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984 strengthened RCRA's
              waste management provisions and added Subtitle I, which governs underground
              storage tanks (USTs).

              Regulations promulgated pursuant to Subtitle C of RCRA (40 CFR Parts 260-299)
              establish a "cradle-to-grave" system governing hazardous waste from the point of
              generation to disposal.  RCRA hazardous wastes include the specific materials
              listed in the regulations (discarded commercial chemical products, designated with
              the code "P" or "U"; hazardous wastes from specific industries/sources, designated
              with the code "K"; or hazardous wastes from non-specific sources, designated with
              the code "F") or materials which exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic
              (ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity and designated with the code "D").

              Entities that generate hazardous waste are subject to waste accumulation,
              manifesting, and recordkeeping standards. A hazardous waste facility may
              accumulate hazardous waste for up to 90 days (or 180 days depending on the
              amount generated per month) without a permit or interim status. Generators may
              also treat hazardous waste in accumulation tanks or containers (in accordance with
              the requirements of 40 CFR 262.34) without a permit  or interim status.

              Facilities that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste are generally required to
              obtain a RCRA permit. Subtitle C permits for treatment, storage, or disposal
              facilities contain general facility standards such as contingency plans, emergency
              procedures, recordkeeping and reporting requirements, financial assurance
              mechanisms, and unit-specific standards.  RCRA also contains provisions (40 CFR
              Subparts I and S) for conducting corrective actions which govern the cleanup of
              releases of hazardous waste or constituents from solid  waste management units at
              RCRA treatment, storage, or disposal facilities.
Sector Notebook Project                      76                              September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                          Federal Statutes and Regulations:
	General Overview

              Although RCRA is a federal statute, many states implement the RCRA program.
              Currently, EPA has delegated its authority to implement various provisions of
              RCRA to 47 of the 50 states and two U.S. territories. Delegation has not been
              given to Alaska, Hawaii, or Iowa.

              Most RCRA requirements are not industry specific but apply to any company that
              generates, transports, treats, stores, or disposes of hazardous waste. Here are
              some important RCRA regulatory requirements:

                     Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and
                     Practices (40 CFR Part 257) establishes the criteria for determining which
                     solid waste disposal facilities and practices pose a reasonable probability of
                     adverse effects on health or the environment. The criteria were adopted to
                     ensure non-municipal, non-hazardous waste disposal units that receive
                     conditionally exempt small quantity generator waste do not present risks to
                     human health and environment.

                     Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills  (40 CFR Part 258)
                     establishes minimum national criteria for all municipal solid waste landfill
                     units, including those that are used to dispose of sewage sludge.

                     Identification of Solid and Hazardous Wastes (40 CFR Part 261)
                     establishes the standard to determine whether the  material in question is
                     considered a solid waste and, if so, whether it is a hazardous waste or is
                     exempted from regulation.

                     Standards for Generators of Hazardous Waste (40 CFR Part 262)
                     establishes the responsibilities of hazardous waste generators including
                     obtaining an EPA ID number, preparing a manifest, ensuring proper
                     packaging and labeling, meeting standards for waste accumulation units,
                     and recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Generators can accumulate
                     hazardous waste on-site for up to 90 days (or 180 days depending on  the
                     amount of waste generated) without obtaining a permit.

                     Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) (40 CFR Part 268) are regulations
                     prohibiting the disposal of hazardous waste on land without prior treatment.
                     Under the LDRs program, materials must meet treatment standards prior to
                     placement in a RCRA land disposal unit (landfill,  land treatment unit, waste
                     pile, or surface impoundment). Generators of waste subject to the LDRs
                     must provide notification of such to the designated TSD facility to ensure
                     proper treatment prior to disposal.
Sector Notebook Project                       77                              September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                         Federal Statutes and Regulations:
	General Overview

                     Used Oil Management Standards (40 CFR Part 279) impose
                     management requirements affecting the storage, transportation, burning,
                     processing, and re-refining of the used oil. For parties that merely generate
                     used oil, regulations establish storage standards. For a party considered a
                     used oil processor, re-refiner, burner, or marketer (one who generates and
                     sells off-specification used oil directly to a used oil burner), additional
                     tracking and paperwork requirements must be satisfied.

              •      RCRA contains unit-specific standards for all units used to store, treat, or
                     dispose of hazardous waste, including Tanks and Containers. Tanks and
                     containers used to store hazardous waste with a high volatile organic
                     concentration must meet emission standards under RCRA. Regulations (40
                     CFR Part 264-265, Subpart CC) require generators to test the waste to
                     determine the concentration of the waste, to satisfy tank and container
                     emissions  standards, and to inspect and monitor regulated units.  These
                     regulations apply to all facilities who store such waste, including large
                     quantity generators accumulating waste prior to shipment offsite.

                     Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) containing petroleum and
                     hazardous substances are regulated under Subtitle I  of RCRA.  Subtitle I
                     regulations (40 CFR Part 280) contain tank design and release detection
                     requirements, as well as financial responsibility and corrective action
                     standards for USTs. The UST program also includes upgrade
                     requirements for existing tanks that were to be met by December 22, 1998.

                     Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (BIFs) that use or burn fuel containing
                     hazardous waste must comply with design and operating standards. BIF
                     regulations (40 CFR Part 266, Subpart FT) address unit design, provide
                     performance standards, require emissions monitoring, and, in some cases,
                     restrict the type of waste that may be burned.

                     EPA'sRCRA,  Superfund, andEPCRA Hotline, at (800) 424-9346,
                     responds to questions and distributes guidance regarding all RCRA
                     regulations. Additional documents and resources can be obtained
                     from the hotline's homepage at www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hotline. The
                     RCRA  Hotline operates weekdays from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., EST,
                     excluding federal holidays.
Sector Notebook Project                      78                             September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                         Federal Statutes and Regulations:
	General Overview

       Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, And Liability Act

              The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
              (CERCLA), a 1980 law commonly known as Superfund, authorizes EPA to
              respond to releases, or threatened releases, of hazardous substances that may
              endanger public health, welfare, or the environment. CERCLA also enables EPA
              to force parties responsible for environmental contamination to clean it up or to
              reimburse the Superfund for response or remediation costs incurred by EPA.  The
              Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 revised various
              sections of CERCLA, extended the taxing authority for the Superfund, and created
              a free-standing law, SARA Title HI, also known as the Emergency Planning and
              Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA).

              The CERCLA hazardous substance release reporting regulations (40 CFR Part
              302) direct the person in charge of a facility to report to the National Response
              Center (NRC) any environmental release of a hazardous substance which equals or
              exceeds a reportable quantity.  Reportable quantities are listed in 40 CFR ง302.4.
              A release  report may trigger a response by EPA, or by one or more federal or state
              emergency response authorities.

              EPA implements hazardous substance responses according to procedures outlined
              in the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)
              (40 CFR Part 300). The NCP includes provisions for cleanups. The National
              Priorities List (NPL) currently includes approximately 1,300 sites.  Both EPA and
              states can  act at other sites; however, EPA provides responsible parties the
              opportunity to conduct cleanups and encourages community involvement
              throughout the Superfund response process.

              EPA'sRCRA, Superfund and EPCRA Hotline, at (800) 424-9346, answers
              questions and references guidance pertaining to the Superfund program.
              Documents and resources can be obtained from the hotline's homepage at
              www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hotline. The Superfund Hotline operates weekdays
             from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., EST, excluding federal holidays.

       Emergency Planning And Community Right-To-Know Act

              The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 created the
              Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA, also known as
              SARA Title HI), a statute designed to improve community access to information
              about chemical hazards and to facilitate the development of chemical emergency
              response plans by state and local governments.  Under EPCRA, states establish
              State Emergency Response Commissions (SERCs), responsible for coordinating
Sector Notebook Project                     79                            September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                         Federal Statutes and Regulations:
	General Overview

              certain emergency response activities and for appointing Local Emergency Planning
              Committees (LEPCs).

              EPCRA and the EPCRA regulations (40 CFR Parts 350-372) establish four types
              of reporting obligations for facilities which store or manage specified chemicals:

                      EPCRA ง 302 requires facilities to notify the SERC and LEPC of the
                      presence of any extremely hazardous substance at the facility in an amount
                      in excess of the established threshold planning quantity.  The list of
                      extremely hazardous substances and their threshold planning quantities is
                      found at 40 CFR Part 355, Appendices A and B.

              •       EPCRA ง 303 requires that each LEPC develop an emergency plan. The
                      plan must contain (but is not limited to) the identification of facilities within
                      the planning district, likely routes for transporting extremely hazardous
                      substances, a description of the methods and procedures to be followed by
                      facility owners and operators, and the designation of community and facility
                      emergency response coordinators.

                      EPCRA ง 304 requires the facility to notify the SERC and the LEPC in the
                      event of a release exceeding the reportable quantity of a CERCLA
                      hazardous substance (defined at 40 CFR 302) or an EPCRA extremely
                      hazardous substance.

              •       EPCRA ง 311 and ง 312 requires a facility at which a hazardous
                      chemical, as defined by the Occupational Safety and Health Act, is present
                      in an amount exceeding a specified threshold to submit to the SERC, LEPC
                      and local fire department material safety data sheets (MSDSs) or lists of
                      MSDSs and hazardous chemical inventory forms (also known as Tier I  and
                      n forms).  This information helps the local government respond in the event
                      of a  spill or release of the chemical.

              •       EPCRA ง 313 requires certain covered facilities, including SIC codes 20
                      through 39 and others, which have ten or more employees, and which
                      manufacture, process, or use specified  chemicals in amounts greater than
                      threshold quantities, to submit an annual toxic chemical release report. This
                      report, commonly known as the Form R, covers releases  and transfers of
                      toxic chemicals to various facilities and environmental media. EPA
                      maintains the data reported in a publically accessible database known as
                      the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).

              All information submitted pursuant to EPCRA  regulations is publicly accessible,
              unless protected by a trade secret claim.
Sector Notebook Project                      80                              September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                         Federal Statutes and Regulations:
	General Overview

              EPA'sRCRA, SuperfimdandEPCRA Hotline, at (800) 535-0202, answers
              questions and distributes guidance regarding the emergency planning and
              community right-to-know regulations.  Documents and resources can be
              obtained from the hotline's homepage at
              http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hotline.  The EPCRA Hotline operates
              weekdays from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., EST, excluding federal holidays.

       Clean Air Act

              The Clean Air Act (CAA) and its amendments are designed to "protect and
              enhance the nation's air resources so as to promote the public health and welfare
              and the productive capacity of the population."  The CAA consists of six sections,
              known as Titles, which direct EPA to establish national standards for ambient air
              quality and for EPA and the  states to implement, maintain, and enforce these
              standards through a variety of mechanisms. Under the CAA, many facilities are
              required to obtain operating permits that consolidate their air emission requirements.
              State and local governments oversee, manage, and enforce many of the
              requirements of the CAA. CAA regulations appear at 40 CFR Parts 50-99.

              Pursuant to Title I of the CAA, EPA has established national ambient air quality
              standards (NAAQSs) to limit levels of "criteria pollutants," including carbon
              monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, ozone and sulfur dioxide.
              Geographic areas that meet NAAQSs for a given pollutant are designated as
              attainment areas; those that do not meet NAAQSs are designated as
              non-attainment areas. Under ง110 and other provisions of the CAA, each state
              must develop a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to identify sources of air pollution
              and to determine what reductions are required to meet federal air quality standards.
              Revised NAAQSs for particulates and ozone were proposed in 1996 and will
              become effective in 2001.

              Title I also authorizes EPA to establish New Source Performance Standards
              (NSPS), which are nationally uniform emission standards for new and modified
              stationary sources falling within particular industrial categories.  The NSPSs are
              based on the pollution control technology available to that category of industrial
              source (see 40 CFR Part 60).

              Under Title I, EPA establishes and enforces National Emission  Standards for
              Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs), nationally uniform standards oriented
              toward controlling specific hazardous air pollutants (HAPs).  Section 112(c) of the
              CAA further directs EPA to develop a list of sources that emit any of 188 HAPs,
              and to develop regulations for these categories of sources.  To date EPA has listed
              185 source categories and developed a schedule for the establishment of emission
              standards. The emission standards are being developed for both new and existing
Sector Notebook Project                      81                              September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                         Federal Statutes and Regulations:
	General Overview

               sources based on "maximum achievable control technology" (MACT). The
               MACT is defined as the control technology achieving the maximum degree of
               reduction in the emission of the HAPs, taking into account cost and other factors.

               Title II of the CAA pertains to mobile sources, such as cars, trucks, buses,  and
               planes. Reformulated gasoline, automobile pollution control devices, and vapor
               recovery nozzles on gas pumps are a few of the mechanisms EPA uses to regulate
               mobile air emission sources.

               Title IV-A establishes a sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides emissions program
               designed to reduce the formation of acid rain. Reduction of sulfur dioxide releases
               will be obtained by granting to certain sources limited emissions allowances that are
               set below previous levels of sulfur dioxide releases.

               Title V of the CAA establishes an operating permit program for all "major sources"
               (and certain other sources) regulated under the CAA.  One purpose of the
               operating permit is to include in a single document all air emissions requirements
               that apply to a given facility. States have developed the permit programs in
               accordance with guidance and regulations from EPA.  Once a state program is
               approved by EPA, permits are issued and monitored by that state.

               Title VI is intended to protect stratospheric ozone by phasing out the manufacture
               of ozone-depleting chemicals and restricting their use and distribution.  Production
               of Class I substances, including 15 kinds of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), were
               phased out (except for essential uses) in 1996. Methyl bromide, a common
               pesticide, has been identified as a significant stratospheric ozone depleting chemical.
               The production and importation of methyl bromide, therefore, is currently being
               phased out in the United States and internationally.  As specified in the Federal
               Register of June 1, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 104) and in 40 CFR Part 82,
               methyl bromide production and importation will be reduced from 1991 levels by 25
               percent in 1999, by 50 percent in 2001, by 70 percent in 2003, and completely
               phased out by 2005.  Some uses of methyl bromide such as the production,
               importation, and consumption of methyl bromide to fumigate commodities entering
               or leaving the United States or any state (or political subdivision thereof)  for
               purposes of compliance with Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
               requirements or with any international, federal, state, or local sanitation or food
               protection standard, will be exempt from this rule. After 2005, exceptions may also
               be made for critical agricultural uses. The United States EPA and the United
               Nations Environment Programme have identified alternatives to using methyl
               bromide in agriculture. Information on the methyl bromide phase-out, including
               alternative, can be found at the EPA Methyl Bromide Phase-Out Website:
               (http://www.epa.gov/docs/ozone/mbr/mbrqa.html).
Sector Notebook Project                       82                               September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                         Federal Statutes and Regulations:
	General Overview

              EPA's Clean Air Technology Center, at (919) 541-0800 and at the Center's
              homepage at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/catc, provides general assistance and
              information on CAA standards. The Stratospheric Ozone Information
              Hotline, at (800) 296-1996 and at http://www.epa.gov/ozone, provides general
              information about regulations promulgated under Title VI of the CAA; EPA's
              EPCRA Hotline, at (800) 535-0202 and at
              http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hotline, answers questions about accidental
              release prevention under CAA ง112(r); and information on air toxics can be
              accessed through the Unified Air Toxics website at
              http://www.epa.gov/ttn/uatw. In addition, the Clean Air Technology Center's
              website includes recent CAA rules, EPA guidance documents, and updates of
              EPA activities.

       Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

              The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) was first passed
              in 1947, and amended numerous times, most recently by the Food Quality
              Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996. FIFRA provides EPA with the authority to
              oversee, among other things, the registration, distribution, sale and use of pesticides.
              The Act applies to all types of pesticides, including insecticides, herbicides,
              fungicides, rodenticides and antimicrobials.  FIFRA covers both intrastate and
              interstate commerce.

              Establishment Registration
              Section 7 of FIFRA requires that establishments producing pesticides, or active
              ingredients used in producing  a pesticide subject to FIFRA, register with EPA.
              Registered establishments must report the types and amounts of pesticides and
              active ingredients they produce. The Act also provides EPA inspection authority
              and enforcement authority for  facilities/persons that are not in compliance with
              FIFRA.

              Product Registration
              Under ง3 of FIFRA, all pesticides (with few exceptions) sold or distributed in the
              United States must be registered by EPA. Pesticide registration is very specific and
              generally allows use of the product only as specified on the label.  Each registration
              specifies the use site, i.e., where the product may be used, and the amount that may
              be applied.  The person who seeks to register the pesticide must file an application
              for registration.  The application process often requires either the citation or
              submission of extensive environmental, health or safety data.

              To register a pesticide, the EPA Administrator must make a number of findings, one
              of which is that the pesticide, when used in accordance with widespread and
Sector Notebook Project                       83                              September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                          Federal Statutes and Regulations:
	General Overview

               commonly recognized practice, will not generally cause unreasonable adverse
               effects on the environment.

               FIFRA defines "unreasonable adverse effects on the environment" as "(1) any
               unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the economic,
               social, and environmental costs and benefits of the use of the pesticide, or (2) a
               human dietary risk from residues that result from a use of a pesticide in or on any
               food inconsistent with the standard under ง408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and
               Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 346a)."

               Under FIFRA ง 6(a)(2), after a pesticide is registered, the registrant must also
               notify EPA of any additional facts and information concerning unreasonable adverse
               environmental effects of the pesticide. Also, if EPA determines that additional data
               are needed to support a registered pesticide, registrants may be requested to
               provide additional data.  If EPA determines that the registrants) did not comply
               with their request for more information, the registration can be suspended under
               FIFRA ง 3(c)(2)(B) and ง 4.

               Use Restrictions
               As a part of the pesticide registration, EPA must classify the product for general
               use, restricted use, or general for some uses and restricted for others (Miller,
               1993).  For pesticides that may cause unreasonable adverse effects on the
               environment, including injury to the applicator, EPA may require that the pesticide
               be applied either by or under the direct supervision of a certified applicator.

               Reregistration
               Due to concerns that much of the safety data underlying pesticide registrations
               becomes outdated and inadequate, in addition to providing that registrations be
               reviewed every 15 years, FIFRA requires EPA to reregister all pesticides that were
               registered prior to 1984 (ง 4). After reviewing existing data, EPA may approve the
               reregistration, request additional data to support the registration, cancel, or suspend
               the pesticide.

               Tolerances and Exemptions
               A tolerance is the maximum amount of pesticide residue that can be on a raw
               product and still be considered safe. Before EPA can register a pesticide that is
               used on raw  agricultural products, it must grant a tolerance or exemption from a
               tolerance (40 CFR.163.10 through 163.12). Under the Federal Food, Drug, and
               Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), a raw agricultural product is deemed unsafe if it contains
               a pesticide residue, unless the residue is within the limits of a tolerance established
               by EPA or is exempt from the requirement.
Sector Notebook Project                       84                              September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                         Federal Statutes and Regulations:
	General Overview

              Cancellation and Suspension
              EPA can cancel a registration if it is determined that the pesticide or its labeling
              does not comply with the requirements of FIFRA or causes unreasonable adverse
              effects on the environment (Haugrud, 1993).

              In cases where EPA believes that an "imminent hazard" would exist if a pesticide
              were to  continue to be used through the cancellation proceedings, EPA may
              suspend the pesticide registration through an order and thereby halt the sale,
              distribution, and usage of the pesticide. An "imminent hazard" is defined as an
              unreasonable adverse effect on the environment or an unreasonable hazard to the
              survival of a threatened or endangered species that would be the likely result of
              allowing continued use of a pesticide during a cancellation process.

              When EPA believes an emergency exists that does not permit a hearing to be held
              prior to  suspending, EPA can issue an emergency order that makes the suspension
              immediately effective.

              Imports and Exports
              Under FIFRA ง17(a), pesticides not registered in the United States and intended
              solely for export are not required to be registered provided that the exporter
              obtains and submits to EPA, prior to export, a statement from the foreign purchaser
              acknowledging that the purchaser is aware that the product is not registered in the
              United States and cannot be sold for use there.  EPA sends these statements to the
              government of the importing country. FIFRA sets forth additional requirements that
              must be met by pesticides intended solely for export.  The enforcement policy for
              exports  is  codified at 40 CFR 168.65, 168.75, and 168.85.

              Under FIFRA ง17(c), imported pesticides and devices must comply with United
              States pesticide law. Except where exempted by regulation or statute, imported
              pesticides must be registered. FIFRA ง17(c) requires that EPA be notified of the
              arrival of imported pesticides and devices.  This is accomplished through the Notice
              of Arrival (NOA) (EPA Form 3540-1), which is filled out by the importer prior to
              importation and submitted to the EPA regional office applicable to the intended port
              of entry. United States Customs regulations prohibit the importation of pesticides
              without a completed NO A. The EPA-reviewed and signed form is returned to the
              importer for presentation to United States Customs when the shipment arrives in the
              United States. NOA forms can be obtained from contacts in the EPA Regional
              Offices or www.epa.gov/oppfeadl/international/noalist.htm.

              Additional information on FIFRA and the regulation of pesticides can be
              obtained from a variety of sources, including EPA 's Office of Pesticide
              Programs homepage atwww.epa.gov/pesticides,
Sector Notebook Project                      85                              September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                          Federal Statutes and Regulations:
	General Overview

              EPA 's Office of Compliance, Agriculture and Ecosystem Division at
              http://es.epa.gov/oeca/agecodiv, or The National Agriculture Compliance
              Assistance Center toll-free at 888-663-2155 or http://www.epa.gov/oeca/ag.
              Other sources include the National Pesticide Telecommunications Network
              toll-free at 800-858-7378 and the National Antimicrobial Information
              Network toll-free at 800-447-6349.

       Toxic Substances Control Act

              The Toxic Substances  Control Act (TSCA) granted EPA authority to create a
              regulatory framework to collect data on chemicals in order to evaluate, assess,
              mitigate, and control risks which may be posed by their manufacture, processing,
              and use.  TSCA provides a variety of control methods to prevent chemicals from
              posing unreasonable risk. It is important to note that pesticides as defined in
              FIFRA are not included in the definition of a "chemical substance" when
              manufactured, processed, or distributed in commerce for use as a pesticide.

              TSCA standards may apply at any point during a chemical's life cycle. Under
              TSCA ง5, EPA has established an inventory of chemical substances.  If a chemical
              substance is not already on the inventory, and has not been excluded by TSCA, a
              premanufacture notice  (PMN) must be submitted to EPA prior to manufacture or
              import. The PMN must identify the chemical and provide available information on
              health and environmental effects. If available data are not sufficient to evaluate the
              chemical's effects, EPA can impose restrictions pending the development of
              information on its health and environmental effects.  EPA can also restrict significant
              new uses of chemicals based upon factors such as the projected volume and use of
              the chemical.

              Under TSCA ง 6, EPA can ban the manufacture or distribution in commerce, limit
              the use, require labeling, or place other restrictions on chemicals that pose
              unreasonable risks.  Among the chemicals EPA regulates under ง 6 authority are
              asbestos,  chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), lead, and polychlorinated biphenyls
              (PCBs).

              Under TSCA ง 8(e), EPA requires the producers and importers (and others) of
              chemicals to report information on a chemicals' production, use, exposure, and
              risks. Companies producing and importing chemicals can be required to report
              unpublished health and safety studies on listed chemicals and to collect and record
              any allegations of adverse reactions or any information indicating that a substance
              may pose a substantial  risk to humans or the environment.
Sector Notebook Project                      86                             September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                         Federal Statutes and Regulations:
	Industry-Specific Requirements

              EPA 's TSCA Assistance Information Service, at (202) 554-1404, answers
              questions and distributes guidance pertaining to Toxic Substances Control Act
              standards.  The Service operates from 8:30 a.m. through 4:30 p.m., EST,
              excluding federal holidays.

IV.B.  Industry-Specific Requirements for Agricultural Livestock Production Industry

              The agricultural livestock production industry discussed in this notebook is
              regulated by several different federal, state, and local agencies. EPA has
              traditionally relied on delegation to states to meet environmental standards, in many
              cases without regard to the methods used to achieve certain performance
              standards. This has resulted in states with more stringent air, water, and hazardous
              waste requirements than the federal minimum requirements. This document does
              not attempt to discuss state standards, but rather highlights relevant federal laws and
              proposals that affect the agricultural  livestock production industry.

       Clean Water Act

              Under the CWA, there are five program areas that potentially affect agricultural
              establishments and businesses. These include: point source discharges, storm water
              discharges, nonpoint source pollution, wetland regulation, and sludge management.
              Key provisions addressing each of these areas are  summarized below:

              •      Point  Source Discharges: The CWA establishes a permitting program
                     known as the NPDES program for "point sources" of pollution.  The term
                     "point source" includes facilities from which pollutants are or may be
                     discharged to waters of the United States and is further defined at 40 CFR
                     Part 122. If granted, the permit will place limits and conditions on the
                     proposed discharges based on the performance of available control
                     technologies and on any applicable (more stringent) water quality
                     considerations. Usually the permit also will require specific compliance
                     measures, establish schedules, and specify  monitoring and reporting
                     requirements.

                     -       Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs):  The
                             CWA defines CAFOs as point sources.  Therefore, CAFOs are
                             subject to the NPDES permitting program. See 40 CFR Part
                             122.23  and 40 CFR 122 Appendix B.  A CAFO is prohibited
                             from discharging pollutants to waters of the U.S. unless it has
                             obtained an NPDES permit for the discharge.

                             • •     Definition of an AFO - An AFO is defined in EPA
                                    regulations as a lot or facility where (1) animals have been,
Sector Notebook Project                      87                              September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                          Federal Statutes and Regulations:
	Industry-Specific Requirements

                                    are, or will be stabled or confined and fed or maintained for
                                    a total of 45 days or more in any 12-month period, and (2)
                                    crops, vegetation, forage growth, or post-harvest residues
                                    are not sustained in the normal growing season over any
                                    portion of the lot or facility.

                             •       Definition of a CAFO - CAFOs are a subset of all AFOs.
                                    Whether an AFO is a CAFO under the regulations
                                    depends on the number of animals confined at the facility.
                                    A CAFO is defined as follows:

                                    (1) More than 1,000 AUs are confined at the facility [40
                                    CFR 122, Appendix B (a)];    OR

                                    (2) From 301 to 1,000 A Us are confined at the facility
                                    and:

                                    -      Pollutants are discharged into waters of the U. S.
                                           through a man-made ditch, flushing system, or other
                                           similar man-made device; or

                                    -      Pollutants are discharged directly into waters of the
                                           U.S. that originate outside of and pass over,  across,
                                           or through the facility or come into direct contact
                                           with the confined animals. [40 CFR 122,  Appendix
                                           B(b)]   OR

                                    (3) The facility has been designated as a CAFO by the
                                    permitting authority on a case-by-case basis [40  CFR
                                    122.23(c)], based on the permitting authority's
                                    determination that the operation is a "significant contributor
                                    of pollution." In making this determination, the permitting
                                    authority considers the following factors:

                                                   Size of the operation;
                                           •       Amount of waste reaching waters of the
                                                   United States;
                                                   Location of the operation relative to waters
                                                   of the U.S.;
                                           •       The means of conveyance of animal wastes
                                                   and process wastewater into waters of the
                                                   United States;
Sector Notebook Project                       88                              September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                          Federal Statutes and Regulations:
	Industry-Specific Requirements

                                            •       The slope, vegetation, rainfall, and other
                                                   factors affecting the likelihood or frequency
                                                   of discharge of animal wastes and process
                                                   wastewater into waters of the U.S.; and
                                            •       Other relevant factors (e.g.,waste handling
                                                   and storage, land application timing,
                                                   methods, rates and areas, etc.).

                                    A permit application shall not be required from a
                                    concentrated animal feeding designated under the case-by-
                                    case authority until after the Director has conducted an on-
                                    site inspection and determined that the operation should
                                    and could be regulated under the NPDES permit program.

                                    No animal feeding operation with less than the number of
                                    animals set forth in 40 CFR 122, Appendix B shall be
                                    designated as a concentrated animal feeding operation
                                    unless either (1) pollutants are discharged into waters of the
                                    U.S. through a manmade ditch, flushing system, or other
                                    similar means, or (2) pollutants are discharged directly into
                                    waters of the U.S. which originate outside of the facility and
                                    pass over, across, or through the facility, or otherwise
                                    come into direct contact with the animals confined in the
                                    operation.

                                    The NPDES permit regulations [40 CFR 122, Appendix
                                    B] contain an exemption for any AFO from being defined
                                    as a CAFO if it discharges only in the event of a 25 year,
                                    24-hour, or larger, storm event. To be eligible for an
                                    exemption, the facility must demonstrate to the permitting
                                    authority that it has not had a discharge.  It must also
                                    demonstrate that the entire facility is designed, constructed,
                                    and operated to contain a storm event of this magnitude in
                                    addition to process wastewater. An operation that qualifies
                                    for this exemption from being defined as  a CAFO may still
                                    be designated as a CAFO by the permitting authority on a
                                    case-by-case basis.
Sector Notebook Project                       89                               September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                         Federal Statutes and Regulations:
	Industry-Specific Requirements
                                     A 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event means the maximum
                                     precipitation event with a probable occurrence of once
                                     in 25 years, as defined by the National Weather Service
                                     in Technical Paper Number 40, "Rainfall Frequency
                                     Atlas of the United States," May 1961, and subsequent
                                     amendments, or equivalent regional or state rainfall
                                     probability information developed therefrom [40 CFR
                                     Part 412.ll(e)].
                      Storm Water Discharges: Under 40 CFR ง122.2, the definition of "point
                      source" excludes agricultural storm water runoff. Thus, such runoff is not
                      subject to the storm water permit application regulations at 40 CFR
                      ง122.26.  Non-agricultural storm water discharges, however, are regulated
                      if the discharge results from construction over 5 acres or certain other types
                      of industrial activity such as landfills, automobile junk yards, vehicle
                      maintenance facilities, etc.

                      -      Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production Facilities. Under 40
                             CFR Part 122.24, a, concentrated aquatic animal production
                             facility is defined and designated as a point source subject to the
                             NPDES permit program.

                             •       Definition of concentrated aquatic animal production facility
                                    (40 CFR Part 122 Appendix C) - A concentrated
                                    aquatic animal production facility is a hatchery, fish
                                    farm, or other facility that meets one of the following
                                    criteria:

                                    (1) A facility that contains, grows, or holds cold water fish
                                    species or other cold water aquatic animals in ponds,
                                    raceways, or similar structures which discharge at least 30
                                    days per year.  The term does not include (a) facilities
                                    which produce less than 9,090 harvest weight kilograms
                                    (approximately 20,000 pounds) of aquatic animals per
                                    year, and (b) facilities which feed less than 2,272 kilograms
                                    (approximately 5,000 pounds) of food during the calendar
                                    month of maximum feeding. Cold water aquatic animals
                                    include, but are not limited to, the salmonidae family (e.g.,
                                    trout and salmon).

                                    (2) A facility that contains, grows, or holds warm water fish
                                    species or other warm water aquatic animals in ponds,
                                    raceways, or similar structures which discharge at least 30
Sector Notebook Project                       90                               September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                          Federal Statutes and Regulations:
	Industry-Specific Requirements

                                    days per year.  The term does not include (a) facilities
                                    which produce less than 45,454 harvest weight kilograms
                                    (approximately 100,000 pounds) of aquatic animals per
                                    year or (b) closed ponds which discharge only during
                                    periods of excess runoff. Warm water aquatic animals
                                    include, but are not limited to, IheAmeiuridae,
                                    Centrarchidae, and Cyprinidae families offish (e.g.,
                                    respectively catfish, sunfish, and minnows).

                                    Designated facility - A facility that does not otherwise
                                    meet the criteria in 40 CFR Part 122 Appendix C
                                    (described above) may be designated as a concentrated
                                    aquatic animal production facility if EPA or an authorized
                                    state determines the production facility is a significant
                                    contributor of pollution to waters of the U.S. No permit is
                                    required for such a designated facility until the EPA or state
                                    officials have conducted an onsite inspection and
                                    determined that the facility should be regulated under the
                                    NPDES permit program.

                             Aquaculture Projects. Under 40 CFR Part 122.25(b),
                             aquaculture means a defined, managed water area that uses
                             discharges of pollutants to maintain or produce harvestable
                             freshwater, estuarine, or marine plants or animals. Discharges into
                             approved aquaculture projects are not required to meet effluent
                             limitations that might otherwise apply. The entire aquaculture
                             project (discharges into and out of the project) is addressed in an
                             NPDES permit.

                             Wastewater Effluent Guidelines for Dairy Product
                             Processing Establishments  Under 40 CFR Part 405,
                             discharges from twelve categories of dairy products processing are
                             subject to the NPDES permit program. Effluent limitations are
                             established for BOD, TSS, and pH. The effluent guidelines
                             establish technology-based pretreatment standards and effluent
                             limitations for each category.

                             Wastewater Effluent  Guidelines for Feedlots (CAFOs)
                             Under 40 CFR Part 412, feedlot (beef cattle, dairy cattle, swine,
                             sheep, etc.) point sources are subject to the NPDES permit
                             program. The effluent guidelines establish technology-based
                             pretreatment standards and effluent limitations for this category.  In
                             general, the current guidelines for feedlots prohibit any discharge  of
Sector Notebook Project                       91                              September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                         Federal Statutes and Regulations:
	Industry-Specific Requirements

                            process wastewater to navigable waters, except in the case of a
                            25-year, 24-hour rainfall event. CAFOs over 1,000 animal units
                            with NPDES permits may discharge pollutants when chronic or
                            catastrophic rainfall events cause an overflow from a facility
                            designed, constructed, and operated to contain all process
                            wastewater plus the runoff from a 25-year, 24-hour storm for the
                            location of the point source.

              •      Nonpoint Source Pollution.  Under the CWA ง319 Nonpoint Source
                     (NFS) Management Program and 40 CFR ง130.6, states (tribes, and
                     territories) establish programs to manage NFS pollution, including runoff
                     and leaching of fertilizers and pesticides, and irrigation return flows. These
                     NFS management programs must identify: (a) best management practices
                     (BMPs) to be used in reducing NFS pollution loadings; (b) programs to be
                     used to assure implementation of BMPs; (c) a schedule for program
                     implementation with specific milestones; and (d) sources of federal or other
                     funding that will be used each year for the support of the state's NFS
                     pollution management program.  Congress provides grant funds to the
                     states annually for the administration of these management programs.

              •      Discharges to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs). Under
                     40 CFR Part 403,  facilities, including agricultural establishments, may
                     discharge certain substances to a POTW if the facility has received prior
                     written permission from the POTW and has completed any required
                     pretreatment.  Facilities must check with their POTWs for information
                     about permitted discharges and for conditions and limitations.

              •      Discharges of Designated Hazardous Substances. Under 40  CFR
                     Parts 116-117, facilities, including agricultural establishments, must
                     immediately notify the National Response Center (1-800-424-8802) and
                     their state agency  of any unauthorized discharge of a designated hazardous
                     substance into (1) navigable waters, (2) the shorelines of navigable waters,
                     or (3) contiguous zones, if the quantity discharged in any 24-hour period
                     equals or exceeds the reportable quantity.  A designated hazardous
                     substance is any chemical listed in Section 311 of the Clean Water Act.
                     The reportable quantity is the amount of the hazardous substance that
                     EPA has determined might cause harm.  The list of hazardous substances
                     along with each chemical's reportable quantity is found in 40 CFR Parts
                     116 and  117. Ammonia and several pesticides are on the list.

              •      Discharges of Oil. Under 40 CFR Part 110, facilities must immediately
                     notify EPA's National Response Center (1-800-424-8802) of any
                     unauthorized discharge of a harmful quantity of oil (including petroleum,
Sector Notebook Project                      92                              September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                           Federal Statutes and Regulations:
	Industry-Specific Requirements

                      fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse, or oil mixed with other wastes) into (1) navigable
                      waters, (2) the shorelines of navigable waters, or (3) contiguous zones and
                      beyond. A discharge of oil is considered harmful if it violates applicable
                      water quality standards, causes a sludge or emulsion to be deposited under
                      the surface of the water or on adjoining shorelines, or causes a film or sheen
                      on, or discoloration of, the water or adjoining shorelines. In  practice, any
                      quantity of oil or a petroleum product is a harmful quantity, since even small
                      amounts will cause a film or sheen on surface water.

                      -      Oil Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC)
                             Program. Under 40 CFR Part 112, facilities, including agricultural
                             establishments, must comply with EPA's SPCC program when they
                             store oil at their facility.  SPCC requirements apply to non-
                             transportation related onshore and offshore facilities  of specified
                             size engaged in storing, processing, refining, transferring or
                             consuming oil products, which due to their location,  could
                             potentially discharge oil into waters of the U.S. or adjoining
                             shorelines.

                             Facilities must comply with the SPCC program: (1) if they have a
                             single aboveground container with an oil storage capacity of more
                             than 660 gallons, multiple aboveground containers with a combined
                             oil storage capacity of more than 1,320 gallons, or a total
                             underground oil storage capacity of more than 42,000 gallons and
                             (2) if there is a reasonable expectation that a discharge (spill, leak,
                             or overfill) from the tank will release harmful quantities of oil into
                             navigable waters or adjoining shorelines. The requirements are
                             triggered by tank capacity, regardless of whether tanks are
                             completely filled.

                             Facilities subject to the SPCC requirements must prepare an
                             SPCC plan. This plan must include:  (1) prevention measures that
                             keep oil releases from  occurring, (2) control measures installed to
                             prevent oil releases from reaching navigable waters,  and (3)
                             countermeasures to contain, clean up, and mitigate the effects of
                             any oil release that reaches navigable waters. Each plan must be
                             unique to the facility and must be signed by a registered
                             professional engineer.

               •       Wetlands on Agricultural Lands.  Swamps,  marshes, fens, bogs, vernal
                      pools, playas, and prairie potholes are common names for wetlands.
                      Wetlands provide a habitat for threatened and endangered species as well
                      as a diversity of other plant, wildlife, and fish species. In addition to
Sector Notebook Project                       93                               September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                          Federal Statutes and Regulations:
	Industry-Specific Requirements

                      providing habitat, wetlands serve other functions, including stabilizing
                      shorelines; storing flood waters; filtering sediments, nutrients, and toxic
                      chemicals from water; and providing an area for the recharge and discharge
                      of groundwater.  It is important to note that not all wetlands will be obvious
                      to the untrained observer.  For example, an area can appear dry during
                      much of the year and still be classified as a wetland. Your local Natural
                      Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) office can help to identify and
                      delineate wetlands on your property.

                      NRCS, formerly the Soil Conservation Service, is the lead agency for
                      identifying wetlands on  agricultural lands. According to NRCS,
                      agricultural lands means those lands intensively used and managed for the
                      production of food or fiber to the extent that the natural vegetation has been
                      removed and therefore  does not provide reliable indicators of wetland
                      vegetation. Areas that meet this definition may include intensively used and
                      managed  cropland, hayland, pastureland, orchards, vineyards, and areas
                      that support wetland crops (e.g.,  cranberries, taro, watercress, rice).
                      Lands not included in the definition of agricultural lands include
                      rangelands, forest lands, woodlots, and tree farms.

                      -      Exemption to Section 404 Permit Requirements. The
                             placement of dredge and fill material into wetlands and other water
                             bodies (i.e., waters of the United States) is regulated by the U.S.
                             Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) under 33 CFR Part 328.  The
                             Corps regulates wetlands by administering the CWA Section 404
                             permit program for activities that impact wetlands. The 404 permit
                             program requires a permit for point source discharges of dredged
                             and fill material into waters of the United States.  However, many
                             normal established farming activities (e.g., plowing, cultivating,
                             minor drainage, and harvesting), silviculture, and ranching activities
                             that involve discharges of dredged or fill materials into U.S. waters
                             are exempt from Section 404 permits and do NOT require a
                             permit (33 CFR ง323.4). In order to be exempt, the activity must
                             be part of an ongoing operation and cannot be associated with
                             bringing a wetland into agricultural production or converting an
                             agricultural wetland to a non-wetland area.

                             If not covered by the above exemption, a permit is required before
                             discharging dredged or fill material into U.S. waters, including most
                             wetlands (33 CFR Part 323). The Army Corps of Engineers
                             (Corps) reviews Section 404 permit applications to determine if a
                             project is the least environmentally damaging and practicable
                             alternative.
Sector Notebook Project                       94                              September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                          Federal Statutes and Regulations:
	Industry-Specific Requirements

              •      POTW Sludge Management - Land Application of Biosolids. Land
                     application is the application of biosolids to land to either condition the soil
                     or fertilize crops or other vegetation grown in the soil. Biosolids are a
                     primarily  organic solid product produced by wastewater treatment
                     processes that can be beneficially recycled.

                     EPA regulates the land application of biosolids under 40 CFR Part 503.
                     As described in A Plain English Guide to the EPA Part 503 Biosolids
                     Rule (EPA/832/R-93-003, September 1994), the Part 503 rule includes
                     general provisions, and requirements for land application, surface disposal,
                     pathogen  and vector attraction reduction, and incineration. For each
                     regulated  use or disposal practice, a Part 503 standard includes general
                     requirements, pollutant limits, management practices, operational standards,
                     and requirements for the frequency of monitoring, recordkeeping, and
                     reporting. For the most part, the requirements of the Part 503 rule are self-
                     implementing and must be followed even without the issuance of a permit
                     covering biosolids use or disposal requirements.

              •      Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program. There are still waters
                     in the nation that do not meet the CWA national goal of "fishable,
                     swimmable" despite the fact that nationally required levels of pollution
                     control technology have been implemented by many pollution sources.  The
                     TMDL program, established under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act,
                     focuses on identifying and allocating pollutant loads to these waterbodies.
                     The goal of a TMDL is the attainment of water quality standards.

                     A TMDL identifies the amount a pollutant needs to be reduced to meet
                     water quality standards, allocates pollutant load reductions among pollutant
                     sources in a watershed, and provides the basis for taking actions needed to
                     restore a waterbody. It can identify the need for point source and nonpoint
                     source controls.

                     Under this provision, States are required to (1) identify and list waterbodies
                     where State water quality standards are not being met following the
                     application of technology-based point source pollution controls; and (2)
                     establish TMDLs for these waters. EPA must review and approve (or
                     disapprove) State lists and TMDLs. If State actions are not adequate, EPA
                     must prepare lists and TMDLs.  TMDLs are to be implemented using
                     existing federal, state, and local authorities and voluntary programs.

                     TMDLs should address all significant pollutants which cause or threaten to
                     cause waterbody use impairment, including:
Sector Notebook Project                       95                              September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                         Federal Statutes and Regulations:
	Industry-Specific Requirements

                     —     Point sources (e.g., sewage treatment plant discharges)
                     -     Nonpoint sources (e.g., runoff from fields, streets, range, or forest
                            land)
                     —     Naturally occurring sources (e.g., runoff from undisturbed lands)

                     A TMDL is the sum of the individual wasteload allocations for point
                     sources, load allocations for nonpoint sources and natural background
                     pollutants, and an appropriate margin of safety. TMDLs may  address
                     individual pollutants or groups of pollutants, as long as they clearly identify
                     the links between: (1) the waterbody use impairment or threat of concern,
                     (2) the causes of the impairment or threat,  and (3) the load reductions or
                     actions needed to remedy or prevent the impairment.

                     TMDLs may be based on readily available information and studies. In some
                     cases, complex studies or models are needed to understand how pollutants
                     are causing waterbody impairment. In many cases, simple analytical efforts
                     provide an adequate basis for pollutant assessment and implementation
                     planning.

                     Where inadequate information is available to draw precise links between
                     these factors, TMDLs may be developed through a phased approach. The
                     phased approach enables states to use available information to establish
                     interim targets, begin to implement needed controls and restoration actions,
                     monitor waterbody response to these actions, and plan for TMDL review
                     and revision in the future. Phased approach TMDLs are particularly
                     appropriate to address nonpoint source issues.

                     Numerous TMDLs are under development in many states and TMDLs are
                     likely to impact agricultural activities by prompting states and  stakeholders
                     to mitigate water pollution caused by agricultural sources (assuming
                     agriculture-related industries are identified as significant contributors to
                     water quality impairment).

       Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990

              The Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program, which is implemented under the
              authority of Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments
              (CZARA) of 1990, is administered at the federal level jointly by EPA and the
              National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA).  The Section 6217 program
              requires the 29 states and territories with NOAA-approved coastal zone
              management programs to develop and implement coastal  nonpoint pollution control
              programs. These  submitted programs must include: (1) management measures that
              are in conformity  with applicable federal guidance and (2) state-developed
Sector Notebook Project                      96                             September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                          Federal Statutes and Regulations:
	Industry-Specific Requirements

              management measures as necessary to achieve and maintain applicable water
              quality standards.

              On January 19, 1993, EPA issued its Guidance Specifying Management
              Measures For Sources ofNonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters.  The federal
              guidance specifies management measures for the following agricultural sources: (1)
              erosion from cropland, (2) confined animal facilities, (3) the application of nutrients
              to croplands, (4) the application of pesticides to cropland, (5) grazing management,
              and (6) irrigation of cropland.

              Once approved, the programs are implemented through state nonpoint source
              programs (under CWA ง319) and state coastal zone management programs
              (authorized under ง306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act).  Agricultural
              establishments located in coastal states should determine whether their land is
              included in the state's coastal management area. If so, they must comply with their
              state's applicable coastal nonpoint programs.  Currently, all state coastal nonpoint
              management programs have been conditionally approved and have begun to be
              implemented.

       Coastal Zone Management Act

              The 1996 amendments to the Coastal Zone Management Act that may affect
              agriculture-related industries include those that relate to aquaculture in the coastal
              zone. Eligible states  may now receive grants for developing a coordinated process
              among state agencies to regulate and issue permits for aquaculture facilities in the
              coastal zone. States may also receive grants for adopting procedures and policies
              to evaluate facilities in the coastal zone that will enable the states to formulate,
              administer, and implement strategic plans for marine aquaculture.  Each state that
              receives such grants will make its own determination as part of its coastal
              management plan on how to specifically use the funds.  Therefore, persons engaged
              in aquaculture productivity in the coastal zone may be eligible for technical or
              financial assistance under their state's plan.

       Safe Drinking Water Act

              The SDWA, which has been amended twice since 1974, protects the water supply
              through water quality regulations and source protection, such as underground
              injection control (UIC) regulations. SDWA requirements apply to all public water
              systems (PWSs).  Currently, 54 of 56 states and territories have been delegated
              primacy to run the drinking water program.

                     Public Water Systems. Under 40 CFR  Parts 141 -143, facilities that
                     operate a PWS or receive water from a PWS and provide treatment to it
Sector Notebook Project                       97                              September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                          Federal Statutes and Regulations:
	Industry-Specific Requirements

                      are subject to SDWA regulations. Prior to 1996, SDWA defined a PWS
                      as "a system for the provision to the public of piped water for human
                      consumption if such system has at least 15  service connections or regularly
                      serves at least 25 individuals." The 1996 Amendments expanded the
                      means of delivering water to include not only pipes, but also other
                      constructed conveyances such as ditches and waterways.

                      While there are three categories of PWSs, an agricultural establishment will
                      most likely operate a non-transient, non-community system. This type of
                      system serves at least 25 people for over 6 months of the year, but the
                      people generally do not live at the facility. All PWSs must comply with the
                      national primary drinking water regulations (40 CFR 141). Under 40 CFR
                      Part 141 Subpart G, EPA has established drinking water standards for
                      numerous pesticides.

                      Establishments that operate a non-transient, non-community system, in
                      general, will need to: (1) monitor for the contaminants the state has
                      established for that type of system, (2) keep records of the monitoring
                      results, (3) report results from all tests and analyses to the state/tribe on a
                      set schedule, (4) take immediate action to correct any violations in the
                      allowable contaminant levels, (5) make a public announcement of any
                      violations to warn people  about potential adverse effects and to describe
                      the steps taken to remedy the problem, and (6) keep records of actions
                      taken to correct violations.

               •       Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Program  Under the
                      SDWA ง1429, states/tribes  are allowed to establish a Comprehensive
                      State Ground Water Protection Program to protect underground sources of
                      drinking water.  Under this program, a state/tribe  can require facilities,
                      including agricultural establishments, to use designated best management
                      practices (BMPs) to help prevent contamination of groundwater by nitrates,
                      phosphates, pesticides, microorganisms, or petroleum products.  These
                      requirements generally apply only to facilities that are subject to the public
                      water system supervision program.  Persons applying pesticides or
                      fertilizers must know the location of all the public water supply source areas
                      in the vicinity that are protected by state/tribal (and sometimes local)
                      requirements.

                      Source Water and Protection Program  Under the SDWA, states are
                      required to develop comprehensive Source Water Assessment Programs
                      (SWAP). The statutorily defined goals for SWAPs are to provide for the
                      protection and benefit of public water systems  and for the support of
                      monitoring flexibility. These programs plan to identify the areas that supply
Sector Notebook Project                       98                               September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                          Federal Statutes and Regulations:
	Industry-Specific Requirements

                      public tap water, inventory contaminants and assess water system
                      susceptibility to contamination, and inform the public of the result.

                      Wellhead Protection Program.  Under the SDWA ง1428, if a facility,
                      has an onsite water source (e.g., well) that qualifies as a PWS, it must take
                      the steps required by the state/tribe to protect the wellhead from
                      contaminants.  A wellhead protection area is the surface and subsurface
                      area surrounding a water well or wellfield supplying a PWS through which
                      contaminants are reasonably likely to move toward and reach such water
                      well or wellfield.

                      Since drinking water standards (40 CFR Part 141 Subpart G) exist for
                      numerous pesticides, which may be used in various agriculture-related
                      activities, some state/tribe and local wellhead and source water protection
                      programs restrict the use of agricultural chemicals in designated wellhead
                      protection areas. In addition, persons applying pesticides or fertilizers must
                      know the location of all  the public water supply source areas in the vicinity
                      that are protected by state/tribal (and  sometimes local) requirements, and
                      the requirements for mixing, loading, and applying agricultural chemicals
                      within any designated wellhead or source water protection areas.

               •       Sole Source Aquifer Protection Program. Under the SDWA ง1424
                      and 40 CFR Part 149 Subpart B, EPA can establish requirements for
                      protecting sole source aquifers. EPA  designates an aquifer as a sole source
                      aquifer if it supplies at least 50 percent of the drinking water consumed in
                      the area overlying the aquifer and no  alternative drinking water sources are
                      feasible. The Sole Source Aquifer program prohibits federal financial
                      assistance (any grant, contract, loan guarantee, or otherwise) for any
                      project, including agricultural projects, that may result in contamination to
                      the aquifer and create a hazard to public heath. Currently, only a few
                      aquifers have been designated as protected sole source aquifers.

               •       Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program. The UIC program (40
                      CFR Parts 144 and 146-148) is a permit program that protects
                      underground sources of  drinking water by regulating five classes of injection
                      wells (I - V).  Underground injection means depositing fluids beneath the
                      surface of the ground by injecting them into a hole (any hole that is deeper
                      than it is wide). Fluids means any material or substance which flows or
                      moves whether in a semi solid, liquid,  sludge, gas, or any other form or
                      state.

                      If a facility disposes of (or formerly disposed of) waste fluids onsite in an
                      injection well,  it triggers the UIC requirements.  In general, a facility may
Sector Notebook Project                       99                               September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                          Federal Statutes and Regulations:
	Industry-Specific Requirements

                      not inject contaminants into any well if the contaminant could cause a
                      violation of any primary drinking water regulation or endanger an
                      underground source of water if the activity would adversely affect the public
                      health. Most deep well underground injections are prohibited without a
                      UIC permit. No Class I, n, or HI injection well may be constructed or
                      opened before a permit has been issued. UIC permits include design,
                      operating, inspection, and monitoring requirements.  In many states/tribes,
                      EPA has authorized the state/tribal agency to administer the program.

                      Class V Wells. Owners/operators of Class V wells (shallow wells that
                      inject fluids above an underground source of water) must not construct,
                      operate, maintain, convert, plug,  abandon, or conduct any other injection
                      activity in a manner that allows the movement of fluid containing any
                      contaminant into underground sources of drinking water, if the presence of
                      that contaminant may cause a violation of any primary drinking water
                      regulation (40 CFR Part 142) or may otherwise adversely affect the health
                      of persons. Examples of Class V wells potentially applicable to agricultural
                      establishments include, but are not limited to:

                      (1)     Drainage wells, such as agricultural drainage wells, primarily used
                             for storm runoff.

                      (2)     Cesspools with open bottoms (and sometimes perforated sides)
                             and septic system wells used to inject waste or effluent from
                             multiple dwellings or businesses (the UIC requirements  do not
                             apply to single family residential septic system or cesspool wells or
                             to non-residential septic system or cesspool wells that are used
                             solely for the disposal of sanitary wastes and have the capacity to
                             serve fewer than 20 persons per day).

                      (3)     Dry wells used for waste injection.

                      (4)     Recharge wells used to replenish aquifers.

                      (5)     Inj ection wells associated with the recovery of geothermal energy
                             for heating, aquaculture,  and production of electric power.

                      (6)     Floor drains in maintenance shops/work areas.
Sector Notebook Project                      100                              September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry
                   Federal Statutes and Regulations:
                    Industry-Specific Requirements
                    Agricultural drainage wells typically drain water from low-lying farm land,
                    but some serve to recharge aquifers from which irrigation water is withdrawn.
                    These wells are usually constructed in areas with poor soil drainage, but
                    where underlying geologic formations allow rapid infiltration of water.
                    Sometimes abandoned water supply wells are adapted for use in agricultural
                    drainage. Agricultural drainage wells typically receive field drainage from
                    saturated topsoil and subsoil, and from precipitation, snowmelt, floodwaters,
                    irrigation return flow, and animal feedlots. The types of pollutants injected into
                    these wells include (1) pesticide runoff, (2) nitrate, nitrite, and salts, such as
                    those of calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, chloride,  sulfate, and
                    carbonate from fertilizer runoff, (3) salts and metals (i.e., iron, lead, cadmium,
                    and mercury) from biosolid sludges and compost, (4) microbes (i.e., bacteria
                    and viruses) from animal waste runoff, and (5) petroleum contaminants, such
                    as fuel and oil, from  runoff from roads or equipment maintenance areas.
                      If a facility has a Class V well, it must furnish inventory information about
                      the well to the appropriate state/tribal agency. If at any time EPA or the
                      state/tribal agency learns that a Class V well may cause a violation of
                      primary drinking water regulations (40 CFR Part 142) or may be otherwise
                      adversely affecting the health of persons, it may require the injector to
                      obtain an individual UIC permit, or order the injector to take such actions
                      (including, where required, closure of the injection well) as may be
                      necessary to prevent the violation.

       Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

               The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) was enacted to address
               problems related to hazardous and solid waste management.  RCRA gives EPA the
               authority to establish a list of solid and hazardous wastes and to establish standards
               and regulations for the treatment, storage, and disposal of these wastes.
               Regulations in Subtitle C of RCRA address the identification, generation,
               transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes. These
               regulations are found in 40 CFR Part 124 and 40 CFR Parts 260-279. Under
               RCRA, persons who generate waste must determine whether the waste is defined
               as solid waste or hazardous waste. Solid wastes are considered hazardous wastes
               if they are listed by EPA as hazardous or if they exhibit characteristics of a
               hazardous waste: toxicity, ignitability, corrosivity, or reactivity.

               Most agriculture-related activities do not generate significant amounts of hazardous
               waste.  Generally, the activities potentially subject to RCRA involve the use of
               pesticides and fertilizers, and the use and maintenance of different types of
               machinery.
Sector Notebook Project
101
September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                         Federal Statutes and Regulations:
	Industry-Specific Requirements

              Hazardous Waste Generator Categories. Facilities that generate hazardous
              waste can be classified into one of three hazardous waste generator categories as
              defined in 40 CFR Part 262:

              •      Conditionally exempt small quantity generator (CESQG).  A facility
                     is classified as a CESQG if it generates no more than 220 Ibs (100 kg) of
                     hazardous waste in a calendar month. There is no time limit for
                     accumulating • 2,200 Ibs of hazardous waste onsite. However, CESQGs
                     cannot store more than 2,200 Ibs (1,000 kg) of hazardous waste onsite at
                     any time.  In addition, CESQGs cannot accumulate onsite more than 2.2
                     Ibs (1 kg) of acutely hazardous waste or more than 220 Ibs spill residue
                     from acutely hazardous waste for any period of time.

              •      Small quantity generator (SQG). A facility is classified as a SQG if it
                     generates >220  Ibs (100 kg) and <2,200 Ibs (1,000  kg) of hazardous
                     waste in a calendar month. SQGs can accumulate onsite no more than
                     13,200 Ibs (6,000 kg) of hazardous waste.  SQGs can store hazardous
                     waste onsite for up to 180 days (or up to 270 days if the waste
                     treatment/disposal facility is more than 200 miles away).

              •      Large quantity generator (LQG). A facility is classified as a LQG if it
                     generates > 2,200 Ibs (1,000 kg) of hazardous waste in a calendar month.
                     While there is no limit on the amount of hazardous waste that LQGs can
                     accumulate onsite, they can only store it onsite for up to 90 days.

              If a facility is a CESQG and generates • 2.2 Ibs (1 kg) of acutely hazardous waste;
              or • 220 Ibs (100 kg) of acutely hazardous waste spill residues in a calendar month,
              and never stores more than that amount for any period of time, it may manage the
              acutely hazardous waste according to CESQG requirements. If it generates more
              than 2.2 Ibs (1 kg) of acutely hazardous waste or >220 Ibs (100 kg) of acutely
              hazardous waste spill residues in a calendar month, the facility must manage it
              according to LQG requirements.
              The hazardous wastes that must be measured are those: (1) accumulated at the
              facility for any period of time before disposal or recycling, (2) packaged and
              transported away from the facility, (3) placed directly into a treatment or disposal
              unit at the facility, or (4) generated as still bottoms or sludges and removed from
              product storage tanks.

              Requirements for CESQGs. Based on the quantity of hazardous waste
              generated per month, most agricultural establishments will qualify as CESQGs.  As
              CESQGs, facilities must comply with three basic waste management requirements:

              (1)    Identify all hazardous waste generated.
Sector Notebook Project                      102                             September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                         Federal Statutes and Regulations:
	Industry-Specific Requirements
              (2)    Do not generate per month more than 220 Ibs (100 kg) of hazardous
                     waste; more than 2.2 Ibs (1 kg) of acutely hazardous waste; or more than
                     220 Ibs (100 kg) of acutely hazardous waste spill residues; and never store
                     onsite more than 2,200 Ibs (1,000 kg) of hazardous waste;  2.2 Ibs of
                     acutely hazardous waste; or more than 220 Ibs of acutely hazardous waste
                     spill residues for any period of time.

              (3)    Ensure proper treatment and disposal of the waste. This means ensuring
                     that the disposal facility is one of the following:
                            A state or federally regulated hazardous waste management
                            treatment, storage, or disposal facility.
                     -     A facility permitted, licensed, or registered by a state to manage
                            municipal or industrial solid waste.
                            A facility that uses, reuses, or legitimately recycles the waste (or
                            treats the waste before use, reuse, or recycling).
                     -     A universal waste handler or destination facility subject to the
                            requirements for universal wastes.

              CESQGs are allowed to transport their own wastes to the treatment or storage
              facility, unlike SQGs and LQGs who are required to use a licensed, certified
              transporter. While there are no specific RCRA requirements for CESQGs who
              transport their own wastes, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) requires
              all transporters of hazardous waste to comply with all applicable DOT regulations.
              Specifically, DOT regulations require all transporters, including CESQGs,
              transporting hazardous waste that qualifies as a DOT hazardous material to comply
              with EPA hazardous waste transporter requirements found in 40 CFR Part 263.
              CESQGs are not required by federal hazardous waste laws to train their employees
              on waste handling or emergency preparedness.

              Requirements for SQGs and LQGs.  Facilities determined to be SQGs or
              LQGs must meet many requirements under the RCRA regulations. These
              requirements, found in 40 CFR 260-279, include identifying hazardous waste;
              obtaining an EPA identification numbers; meeting requirements for waste
              accumulation and storage limits; container management; conducting personnel
              training; preparing a manifest; ensuring proper hazardous waste packaging, labeling,
              and placarding; reporting and recordkeeping; and contingency planning, emergency
              procedures, and accident prevention.

              Notes: Facilities that fall into different generator categories during different
              months may choose to simplify compliance  by satisfying the more stringent
              requirements all the time.
Sector Notebook Project                      103                             September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                         Federal Statutes and Regulations:
	Industry-Specific Requirements

               Specific Provisions. RCRA regulations include several specific provisions
               addressing agriculture-related materials and activities.  Key provisions are briefly
               summarized below:

               •       Exemption for Certain Solid Wastes Used as Fertilizers. Under 40
                      CFR ง261.4(b), solid wastes generated by (1) growing and harvesting of
                      agricultural crops, or (2) raising animals (including animal manure), and that
                      are returned to the soils as fertilizers are excluded from regulation as
                      hazardous waste.

               •       Exemption for Certain Hazardous Waste Pesticides.  Under 40 CFR
                      ง262.70, farmers who  generate any amount of hazardous waste pesticides
                      from their own use are excluded from the generator,
                      treatment/storage/disposal facility, land disposal, and permit requirements
                      under RCRA Subtitle C, provided that the farmer: (1) disposes of the
                      waste pesticide in a manner consistent with the label on the pesticide
                      container;  (2) triple rinses each empty container in accordance with
                      requirements at 40 CFR ง261.7(b)(3); and (3) disposes of the rinsate on
                      his own farm in accordance with the instructions on the label. If the label
                      does not include disposal instruction, or no instructions are available from
                      the pesticide manufacturer, the waste pesticide and rinsate must be
                      disposed of in accordance with Subtitle C hazardous waste requirements.
                      (Also see 40 CFR Part 165 - FIFRA)

               •       Exemption for Commercial Fertilizers. Under 40 CFR ง266.20,
                      commercial fertilizers produced for general public (including agricultural)
                      use that contain recyclable materials are not presently subject to regulation
                      provided they meet the applicable land disposal restriction (LDR) standards
                      for each recyclable material they contain. For example, zinc-containing
                      fertilizers containing K061 (emission control dust from the primary
                      production of steel in electric furnaces) are not subject to regulation.

               •       Fertilizers Made from Hazardous Wastes.  Under 40 CFR Parts 266
                      and 268, EPA regulates fertilizers containing hazardous wastes as
                      ingredients. Hazardous wastes  may be used as ingredients in fertilizers
                      under certain conditions, since such wastes can be a beneficial component
                      of legitimate fertilizers. EPA has established standards that specify limits on
                      the levels of heavy metals and  other contents used as fertilizer ingredients.
                      These standards are based on treatment, by the best technology currently
                      available, to reduce the toxicity and mobility of all the  contents of the
                      hazardous waste components. These standards are based on waste
                      management considerations and do not include consideration of the
                      potential agronomic or dietary risk.
Sector Notebook Project                       104                              September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                         Federal Statutes and Regulations:
	Industry-Specific Requirements
                      Food Chain Crops Grown on Hazardous Waste Land Treatment
                      Units. Under 40 CFR Part  264.276, food chain crops (including feed for
                      animals consumed by humans) may be grown in or on hazardous waste
                      land treatment units under certain conditions and only with a permit.  The
                      permit for a facility will list the specific food-chain crops that may be grown.
                      To obtain a permit, the owner/operator of the facility wishing to grow the
                      food-chain crops must demonstrate — prior to the planting of such crops —
                      that there is no substantial risk to human health caused by the growth of
                      such crops in or on the treatment zone.

                      Solid Waste Disposal Criteria. Under RCRA Subtitle D, 40 CFR
                      257.3  establishes solid waste disposal criteria addressing floodplains,
                      endangered species, groundwater protection, application to land used for
                      food chain crops, disease vectors, air pollution, and safety.  These criteria
                      are largely guidelines used by states in developing solid waste regulations,
                      which control the disposal of waste on a farmer's property.
                      Land Application of Fertilizers Derived from Drinking Water
                      Sludge. Under 40 CFR Part 257, EPA regulates the land application of
                      solid wastes, including drinking water sludge applied as fertilizer.  These
                      requirements include: (1) cadmium limits on land used for the production of
                      food-chain crops (tobacco, human food, and animal feed) or alternative
                      less stringent cadmium limits on land used solely for production of animal
                      feed; (2) polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) limits on land used for
                      producing animal feed, including pasture crops for animals raised for milk;
                      and (3) minimization of disease vectors, such as rodents, flies, and
                      mosquitoes, at the site of application through incorporation of the fertilizer
                      into soil so as to impede the vectors' access to the sludge.

                      Pesticides That Are Universal Wastes.  Under 40  CFR Part 273, EPA
                      has established a separate set of requirements for three types of wastes
                      called universal wastes. Universal wastes include certain batteries, certain
                      pesticides, and mercury thermostats. Pesticides designated as universal
                      wastes include (1) recalled pesticides that are stocks of a suspended or
                      canceled pesticide and part of a voluntary or mandatory recall under
                      FIFRA ง19(b); (2) recalled  pesticides that are  stocks of a suspended or
                      canceled pesticide, or a pesticide that is not in compliance with FIFRA, that
                      are part of a voluntary recall [see FIFRA ง19(b)(2)] by the registrant; and
                      (3) stocks of other unused pesticide products that are  collected and
                      managed as part of a waste pesticide collection program.

                      The Universal Waste rule is optional for states/tribe to adopt. In those
                      states/tribes that have not adopted the Universal Waste rule, these wastes
Sector Notebook Project                       105                              September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                         Federal Statutes and Regulations:
	Industry-Specific Requirements

                     must be disposed of in accordance with the hazardous (or acutely
                     hazardous) waste requirements (see 40 CFR Part 262).

                     Exemption for Small Quantities of Used Oil Under 40 CFR ง279.20,
                     agricultural establishments that generate an average of 25 gallons or less of
                     used oil per month per calendar year from vehicles or machinery used on
                     the establishment are not subject to the requirements of 40 CFR Part 279.

              •      Exemption for "Farm Tanks" and Tanks of 110 Gallons or Less.
                     Under the underground storage tank (UST) regulations (RCRA Subtitle I,
                     40 CFR ง280.12), "farm tanks" of 1,100 gallons or less capacity used for
                     storing motor fuel for non-commercial purposes are not regulated as
                     underground storage tanks. "Farm tanks " include tanks located on a
                     tract of land devoted to the production of crops or raising animals (including
                     fish) and associated residences and improvements.  Also under 40 CFR
                     ง280.10, the UST program does not apply to UST systems of 110 gallons
                     or less capacity, or that contain a de minimis concentration of a regulated
                     substance.

                     Even with the above exemptions, keep in mind that many agricultural
                     establishments may be subject to the UST program (40 CFR Part 280).
                     The UST regulations apply to facilities that store either petroleum products
                     or hazardous substances (except hazardous wastes) identified under
                     CERCLA. UST regulations address design standards, leak detection,
                     operating practices, response to releases, financial responsibility for
                     releases, and closure standards.

       Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

              Under CERCLA, there are a limited number of statutory and regulatory
              requirements that potentially affect agricultural businesses. The key provisions are
              summarized below:

              •      Emergency Release Notification Requirements. Under CERCLA
                     ง103(a), facilities are required to notify the National Response Center
                     about any release of a CERCLA hazardous substance in quantities equal to
                     or greater than its reportable quantity (RQ). Releases include discharges
                     into the air, soil, surface water, or groundwater.  Any release at or above
                     the RQ must be reported regardless of whether there is a potential for
                     offsite exposure.

                     -      Hazardous Substances. The term "hazardous substance" is
                            defined in CERCLA ง101(14) and these substances (more than
Sector Notebook Project                     106                             September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                         Federal Statutes and Regulations:
	Industry-Specific Requirements

                            700) are listed at 40 CFR Part 302, Table 302.4. Several
                            agricultural chemicals are on the CERCLA hazardous substance
                            list, including many pesticides, anhydrous ammonia, and ethylene
                            glycol.

                     -      Reportable Quantities. For each hazardous substance, EPA has
                            designated a RQ of 1, 10, 100, 1,000, or 5,000 pounds.  RQs are
                            listed in 40 CFR Part 355, Appendices A and B and 40 CFR Part
                            302, Table 302.4.

                     -      When No Notification is Required. There are several types of
                            releases that are excluded from the requirements of CERCLA
                            release notification.  Two of these releases, excluded under
                            CERCLA งง101(22) and 103(e), include the normal application of
                            fertilizer and the application of pesticide products registered under
                            FIFRA. Keep in mind that spills, leaks, or other accidental or
                            unintended releases of fertilizers and pesticides are subject to
                            the reporting requirements.

              •       Facility Notification and Recordkeeping Requirements - Exemption
                     for Agricultural Producers. Under CERCLA งง103(c) and (d), certain
                     facilities must notify EPA of their existence and the owners/operators must
                     keep records.  However, CERCLA ง103(e) exempts agricultural
                     producers who store and handle FIFRA-registered pesticides from the
                     facility notification and recordkeeping requirements. CERCLA does not
                     define the term agricultural producer.

              •       Liability for Damages. Under CERCLA ง107(a), an owner/operator of
                     a facility that has CERCLA hazardous substances onsite may be liable for
                     cleanup costs, response costs, and natural resource damages associated
                     with a release or threatened release of hazardous substances. Agricultural
                     establishments are potentially liable under this section, and that liability
                     extends to past practices.

       Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act

              A summary of the potential applicability of specific sections of EPCRA on the
              agricultural sector follows below.

              •       Emergency Planning and Notification. Under EPCRA ง302, owners or
                     operators of any facility, including agricultural establishments, that have
                     extremely hazardous substances (40 CFR Part 355 Appendices A and
                     B) present in excess of the threshold planning quantity must notify in
Sector Notebook Project                      107                            September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                         Federal Statutes and Regulations:
	Industry-Specific Requirements

                     writing their state emergency response commission (SERC) and their local
                     emergency planning committee (LEPC) that they are subject to EPCRA
                     planning requirements. Under EPCRA ง303, they  must also notify the
                     LEPC of the name of a person at their facility whom the LEPC may contact
                     in regard to planning issues related to these extremely hazardous
                     substances. They must also inform the LEPC promptly of any  relevant
                     changes, and when requested, must provide information to the LEPC
                     necessary for emergency planning.

                     Ammonia, several agricultural pesticides, and certain fuels are included on
                     the list of extremely  hazardous substances found in 40 CFR Part 355
                     Appendices A and B.  If a listed substance is a solid, two different planning
                     quantities are listed (e.g., 500 lbs/10,000 Ibs).  The smaller amount (e.g.,
                     500 Ibs.) applies if the substance is in powder form, such as a soluble or
                     wettable powder, or if it is in solution or molten form. The larger quantity
                     (10,000 Ibs.) applies for most other forms of the substance. If the extremely
                     hazardous substance is part of a mixture or solution, then the amount is
                     calculated by multiplying its percent by weight times the total weight of the
                     mixture or solution.  If the percent by weight is less than one percent, the
                     calculation is not required (40 CFR Part 355.30).

                     •      Ammonia - The quantity of anhydrous ammonia that triggers the
                            planning requirement is 500 pounds.

                     •      Pesticides  —  Examples of pesticides on the list with the quantity in
                            pounds that triggers the planning requirement include: ethion
                            (1,000), nicotine (100), dichlorvos (1,000), parathion  (100),
                            chlordane  (1,000),  methyl bromide (1,000), ethylene oxide
                            (1,000), fenitrothion (500), phorate (10), zinc phosphide (500),
                            aluminum phosphide (500), terbufos (100), phosphamidon (100),
                            demeton (500), ethoprop (1,000), and disulfoton (500).

                     •      Solid Pesticides — Examples of pesticides with dual quantities that
                            trigger the planning requirements include: coumaphos  (100/10,000),
                            strychnine (100/10,000), dimethoate (500/10,000), warfarin
                            (500/10,000), azinphos-methyl (10/10,000), methyl parathion
                            (100/10,000),  phosmet (10/10,000), methidathion (500/10,000),
                            carbofuran (10/10,000), paraquat (10/10,000),  methiocarb
                            (500/10,000), methamidophos (100/10,000), methomyl
                            (500/10,000),  fenamiphos (10/10,000), and oxamyl (100/10,000).

              •      ง304 Emergency Release Notification.  Under 40 CFR 355, facilities
                     must immediately notify the SERC and LEPC of releases of EPCRA
Sector Notebook Project                      108                             September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                          Federal Statutes and Regulations:
	Industry-Specific Requirements

                     extremely hazardous substances and CERCLA hazardous substances when
                     the release equals or exceeds the reportable quantity within a 24-hour
                     period and has the potential for offsite exposure. There are two
                     notifications required: the initial notification and the written followup
                     notification.

                     Exemption for Substances  Used in Agricultural Operations. Only
                     facilities that produce, use or store hazardous chemicals are subject to
                     EPCRA release reporting. EPCRA ง31 l(e) excludes from the definition of
                     hazardous chemicals those substances used in routine agricultural
                     operations.  The exemption covers fertilizers and pesticides used in routine
                     agricultural operations and fuels for operating farm equipment (including to
                     transport crops to market).  If all the hazardous chemicals present at the
                     facility do not fall within this exemption, the facility must report all releases
                     of any EPCRA extremely hazardous substance or CERCLA hazardous
                     substance. Additionally, spills, leaks, or other accidental or unintended
                     releases of fertilizers and pesticides are subject to the EPCRA release
                     reporting requirements.

              •      ง311 and ง312 Hazardous Chemical Inventory and Reporting. Under
                     EPCRA ง311 and ง312, facilities must inventory the hazardous chemicals
                     present onsite in amounts equal to or in excess of the threshold planning
                     quantities, and meet two reporting requirements:

                     -      A one-time notification of the presence of hazardous chemicals
                            onsite in excess of threshold levels (EPCRA ง311) to the SERC,
                            LEPC, and the local fire department; and

                     -      An annual notification (Tier I or Tier n report) to the SERC,
                            LEPC, and the local fire department detailing the locations and
                            hazards associated with the hazardous chemicals found on facility
                            grounds (EPCRA ง312).

                     Exemption for Substances Used in Agricultural Operations. As
                     mentioned above, the term "hazardous chemical," as defined in EPCRA
                     ง31 l(e), excludes substances used in routine agricultural operations.

       Clean Air Act

              Agriculture-related industries generally do not include those industry sectors
              considered to be major sources of air pollution. Nevertheless, some agriculture-
              related activities are potentially subject to regulation under the CAA.  The
Sector Notebook Project                     109                             September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                          Federal Statutes and Regulations:
	Industry-Specific Requirements

              provisions identified below summarize the CAA requirements applicable to certain
              agriculture-related activities:

                     Risk Management Program.  Under ง112(r) of the Clean Air Act, EPA
                     has promulgated the Risk Management Program Rule.  The rule's main
                     goals are to prevent accidental releases of regulated substances and to
                     reduce the severity of those releases that do occur by requiring facilities to
                     develop risk management programs.  A facility's risk management program
                     must incorporate three elements: a hazard assessment, a prevention
                     program, and an emergency response program. These programs are to be
                     summarized in a risk management plan (RMP) that will be made available
                     to state and local government agencies and the public.

                     Under 40 CFR Part 68, facilities that have more than the threshold  quantity
                     of any of the listed regulated substances in a single process are required to
                     comply with the regulation. Process means any regulated activity involving
                     a regulated substance, including manufacturing, storing, distributing, or
                     handling a regulated substance or using it in any other way.  Any group of
                     interconnected vessels (including piping), or separate vessels located close
                     enough together to be involved in a single accident, are considered a single
                     process. Transportation is not included.

                     Listed regulated substances are acutely toxic substances, flammable
                     gases, volatile liquids, and highly explosive substances listed by EPA in the
                     Risk Management Program rule. The threshold quantity is the amount of a
                     regulated substance that triggers the development of a RMP. The list of
                     regulated substances and their corresponding threshold quantities are found
                     at 40 CFR Part 68. Examples of threshold quantities of listed regulated
                     substances include: formaldehyde — 15,000 pounds; ethylene oxide —
                     10,000 pounds; methyl isocyanate - 10,000 pounds;  anydrous ammonia -
                     - 10,000 pounds; and mixtures containing ammonia in a concentration  of 20
                     percent or greater — 20,000 pounds.

                     Exception: Ammonia that farmers are holding for use as fertilizer  is
                     not a regulated substance under the risk management program.
                     Farmers are not responsible for preparing a risk management plan if
                     ammonia held for use as a fertilizer is the only listed regulated
                     substance that they have in more than threshold quantities. However,
                     ammonia that is on a farm for any other  use, such as for distribution
                     or as a coolant/refrigerant, is not exempt.

                     Three program levels. The risk management planning regulation (40
                     CFR Part 68) defines the activities facilities must undertake to address  the
Sector Notebook Project                      110                              September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                          Federal Statutes and Regulations:
	Industry-Specific Requirements

                      risks posed by regulated substances in covered processes. To ensure that
                      individual processes are subject to appropriate requirements that match
                      their size and the risks they may pose, EPA has classified them into 3
                      categories ("programs"):

                             Program 1 requirements apply to processes for which a worst-
                             case release, as evaluated in the hazard assessment, would not
                             affect the public. These are processes that have not had an
                             accidental release that caused serious offsite consequences.

                             Program 2 requirements apply to less complex operations that do
                             not involve chemical processing.

                      -      Program 3 requirements apply to higher risk, complex chemical
                             processing operations and to processes already subject to the
                             OSHA Process Safety Management Standard (29 CFR
                             1910.119)

                      Risk Management Planning. Facilities with more than a threshold
                      quantity of any of the 140 regulated substances in a single process are
                      required to develop a risk management program and to summarize their
                      program in a risk management plan (RMP).  A facility subject to the
                      requirements was required to have submitted a registration and RMP by
                      June 21, 1999, or whenever it first exceeds the threshold for a listed
                      regulated substance after that date.

                      All facilities with processes in Program 1 must carry out the following
                      elements of risk management planning:

                             An offsite consequence analysis that evaluates specific potential
                             release scenarios, including worst-case and alternative scenarios.

                      -      A five-year history of certain accidental releases of regulated
                             substances from covered processes.

                      -      A risk management plan, revised at least once every five years, that
                             describes and documents these activities for all covered processes.

                      Facilities with processes in Programs 2 and 3 must also address  each of the
                      following elements:
Sector Notebook Project                      111                              September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                          Federal Statutes and Regulations:
	Industry-Specific Requirements

                      -      An integrated prevention program to manage risk. The prevention
                             program will include identification of hazards, written operating
                             procedures, training, maintenance, and accident investigation.

                      -      An emergency response program.

                             An overall management system to put these program elements into
                             effect.

                      National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)/SIPS  Under the
                      CAA ง10, each state must develop a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to
                      identify sources of air pollution and to determine what reductions are
                      required to meet federal air quality standards. If the applicable SIP
                      imposes requirements on an agricultural establishment, that facility must
                      comply with the SIP.  The most likely pollutant of concern with respect to
                      agriculture-related businesses is particulate matter.

       Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

              For agricultural producers, FIFRA is the environmental statute that most
              significantly impacts day-to-day operations of pesticide use.  It also imposes
              administrative requirements on pesticide users, including agricultural producers. A
              summary of major provisions applicable to agricultural producers is provided
              below.

                      Use Restrictions.  The pesticide product label is information printed on or
                      attached to the pesticide container.  Users are legally required to follow the
                      label.  Labeling is the pesticide product label and other accompanying
                      materials which contain directions that pesticide users are legally required to
                      follow. Under FIFRA ง12, each pesticide must be used only in a way that
                      is consistent with its labeling.

                      —      As a part of the pesticide registration, EPA must classify the
                             product for general use, restricted use, or general for some uses
                             and restricted for others (Miller, 1993).  For pesticides that may
                             cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment, including
                             injury to the applicator, EPA may require that the pesticide be
                             applied either by or under the direct supervision of a certified
                             applicator.

                      —      It is against the law (Endangered Species Act) to harm an
                             endangered species. Harm includes not only acts that directly
                             injure or kill the protected species, but also significant habitat
Sector Notebook Project                       112                              September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                          Federal Statutes and Regulations:
	Industry-Specific Requirements

                             modification or degradation that disrupts breeding, feeding, or
                             sheltering. Pesticide users must comply with any pesticide labeling
                             restrictions or requirements that concern the protection of
                             endangered species or their habitats.

               •       Tolerances and Exemptions.  A tolerance is the maximum amount of
                      pesticide residue that can be on a raw product and still be considered safe.
                      Before EPA can register a pesticide that is used on raw agricultural
                      products, it must grant a tolerance or exemption from a tolerance (40
                      CFR.163.10 through 163.12). Under the Federal Food, Drug, and
                      Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), a raw agricultural product is deemed unsafe if it
                      contains a pesticide residue, unless the residue is within the limits of a
                      tolerance established by EPA or is exempt from the requirement.

                      To avoid being responsible for products being over tolerance, users must
                      be particularly careful to comply with the label instructions concerning
                      application rate and minimum days between pesticide application and
                      harvest (i.e., preharvest interval), slaughter, freshening, or grazing.

               •       Worker Protection Standard (WPS) Requirements for Users. The
                      WPS for Agricultural Pesticides (40 CFR Parts 156 and 170) covers
                      pesticides that are used in the commercial production of agricultural plants
                      on farms, forests, nurseries, and greenhouses.  The WPS requires pesticide
                      users to take steps to reduce the risk of pesticide-related illness and injury if
                      they or their employees may be exposed to pesticides used in the
                      commercial production of agricultural plants.

               •       Cancellation and Suspension. EPA can cancel a registration if it is
                      determined that the pesticide or its labeling does not comply with the
                      requirements of FIFRA or causes unreasonable adverse effects on the
                      environment (Haugrud, 1993).

                      In cases where EPA believes that an "imminent hazard" would exist if a
                      pesticide were to continue to be used through the cancellation proceedings,
                      EPA may suspend the pesticide registration through an order and thereby
                      halt the sale, distribution, and usage of the pesticide. An "imminent hazard"
                      is defined as an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment or an
                      unreasonable hazard to the survival of a threatened or endangered species
                      that would be the likely result of allowing continued use of a pesticide
                      during a cancellation process.
Sector Notebook Project                       113                             September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                         Federal Statutes and Regulations:
	Industry-Specific Requirements

                     When EPA believes and emergency exists that does not permit a hearing to
                     be held prior to suspending, EPA can issue an emergency order that makes
                     the suspension immediately effective.

       Toxic Substances Control Act

              TSCA has a limited impact on the agricultural sector. TSCA ง3, Definitions,
              specifies that the term chemical substance means any organic or inorganic
              substance of a particular molecular identity. The definition also states, as declared
              at subsection (2)(B)(ii), that such term does not include any pesticide (as defined in
              FIFRA) when manufactured, processed, or distributed in commerce for use as a
              pesticide.  Since the majority of potentially hazardous substances used by
              agricultural producers  are pesticides, they are regulated under FIFRA. Regulation
              of hazardous substances under other authorities is part of TSCA's overall scheme
              which allows EPA to decline to regulate a chemical under TSCA if other federal
              regulatory authorities (e.g., FIFRA)  are sufficiently addressing the risks posed from
              those substances.

                     Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Material  Under TSCA ง6 and 40
                     CFR Part 61, Subpart M, EPA regulates the renovation/demolition
                     activities,  notification, work practices and removal, and disposal of
                     asbestos-containing material (ACM). ACM should be carefully monitored;
                     however, the mere presence of asbestos in a building is not considered
                     hazardous. ACM that becomes damaged, however, may pose a health risk
                     since it may release asbestos fibers over time.  If a material is suspected of
                     containing asbestos and it is  more than slightly damaged, or if changes need
                     to be made to a building that might disturb it, repair or removal of the ACM
                     by a professional is needed.

                     Asbestos Brake Pads. Facilities that repair their own brakes should be
                     aware of asbestos requirements. Asbestos brake pads must be removed
                     using appropriate control measures so that no visible emissions of asbestos
                     will be discharged to the outside air.  These measures can include one of
                     the following:  (1) wetting that is generally done through the use of a brake
                     washing solvent bath, such as those provided by  a service; (2) vacuuming
                     that is usually performed with a commercial brake vacuum specifically
                     designed for use during brake pad changing or pad re-lining operations; or
                     (3) combination of wetting and vacuuming.

                     Asbestos brake pads  and wastes must be managed by: (1) labeling
                     equipment, (2) properly disposing of spent solvent, (3) properly disposing
                     of used vacuum filters, and (4) sealing used brake pads. The containers or
Sector Notebook Project                      114                             September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                         Federal Statutes and Regulations:
	Industry-Specific Requirements

                     wrapped packages must be labeled using warning labels as specified by
                     OSHA [29 CFR 1910.001 (j) (2) or 1926.58 (k)(2)(iii)].
                     Asbestos waste must be disposed of as soon as practical at an EPA-
                     approved disposal site.  The asbestos containers must be labeled with the
                     name and location of the waste generator.  Vehicles used to transport the
                     asbestos must be clearly labeled during loading and unloading.  The waste
                     shipment records must be maintained (40 CFR 61.150) so that the
                     asbestos  shipment can be tracked and substantiated.

              •      Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs). PCBs were widely used in electrical
                     equipment manufactured from 1932 to 1978. Types of equipment
                     potentially containing PCBs include transformers and their bushings,
                     capacitors, reclosers, regulators, electric light ballasts, and oil switches. Any
                     equipment containing PCBs in their dielectric fluid at concentrations of
                     greater than 50 ppm are subject to the PCB requirements.

                     Under TSCA ง6 and 40 CFR Part 761, facilities must ensure through
                     activities related to the management of PCBs (e.g., inspections for leaks,
                     proper storage) that human food or animal feed are not exposed to PCBs.
                     While the regulations do not establish a specific distance limit, any item
                     containing PCBs is considered to pose an unacceptable exposure risk to
                     food or feed if PCBs released in any form have the potential to  reach/
                     contaminate food or feed.

              •      Lead. Approximately 1.7 million children have blood-lead levels high
                     enough to raise health concerns. Studies suggest that lead exposure from
                     deteriorated residential lead-based paint, contaminated soil, and lead in
                     dust are among the major existing sources of lead exposure among children
                     in the U.S.

                     Section 1018 of the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard
                     Reduction Act of 1992 directs EPA and the Department of Housing and
                     Urban Development (HUD) to jointly issue regulations requiring disclosure
                     of known lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards by  persons
                     selling or leasing housing constructed before the phaseout of residential
                     lead-based paint use in  1978. Under that authority, EPA and HUD jointly
                     issued on March 6, 1996, regulations titled Lead; Requirements for
                     Disclosure of Known Lead-Based Paint and/or Lead-Based Paint
                     Hazards in Housing (40 CFR Part 35 and 40 CFR Part 745).  In these
                     regulations, EPA and HUD established requirements for sellers/lessors of
                     residential housing built before 1978.
Sector Notebook Project                      115                             September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                         Federal Statutes and Regulations:
	Proposed and Pending Regulations

                     Pre-Renovation Lead Information Rule. If conducted improperly,
                     renovations in housing with lead-based paint can create serious health
                     hazards to workers and occupants by releasing large amounts of lead dust
                     and debris. Under TSCA ง406 and through a rule published on June 1,
                     1998 entitled Lead; Requirements for Hazard Education Before
                     Renovation of Target Housing (40 CFR Part 745), EPA required the
                     distribution of lead hazard information (i.e., EPA-developed pamphlet)
                     prior to professional renovations on residential housing built before 1978.

IV.C. Proposed and Pending Regulations

       Clean Water Act

              Feedlots Effluent Limitation Guidelines. EPA is in the process of reviewing
              and revising the effluent limitation guidelines for feedlots. EPA is under a court-
              ordered schedule to revise the guidelines for poultry and swine by December 2001
              and for beef and dairy cattle by December 2002.

              NPDES Implementing Regulations. EPA intends to revise the existing NPDES
              permitting regulations to clarify expectations and requirements for CAFOs as well
              as to reflect the changes in the industry. NRCS and other USDA agencies will
              participate on the regulatory workgroup to advise EPA on the technical and
              implementation aspects related to any proposed revisions. Revision of the
              permitting regulations is expected to be closely coordinated with the revision of the
              Feedlots Effluent Limitation Guidelines (40 CFR Part 412) because of the
              commonality of issues and the administrative efficiencies for EPA,  States and all
              interested groups.  Permits in effect on the date of new regulations will remain in
              effect until subsequently changed to incorporate the new requirements.

       Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990

              Implementation of Management Measures. Under Section 6217, states/tribes
              must fully implement the management measures in their Coastal Nonpoint Pollution
              Control Programs by January 2004. States/tribes are required to perform
              effectiveness monitoring between 2004 and 2006 and implement other measures
              between 2006 and 2009.

       Safe Drinking Water Act

              Management of Class V Wells. EPA plans to propose additional requirements
              addressing the environmental risks posed by the highest risk Class V wells. This
              rulemaking potentially affects agricultural operations that use industrial  and
              commercial disposal wells and large capacity cesspools.
Sector Notebook Project                     116                            September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry                          Federal Statutes and Regulations:
	Proposed and Pending Regulations

       Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

              Pesticide Management and Disposal: Proposed Rule - issued on May 5,  1993
              (FR26857).  The regulations for this rule will be found in the Code of Federal
              Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR Part 165 - Regulations for the Acceptance of
              Certain Pesticides and Recommended Procedures for the Disposal and Storage of
              Pesticides and Pesticides Containers. This final rule will:

              —   Describe procedures for voluntary and mandatory recall actions.
              -   Establish criteria for acceptable storage and disposal plans which registrants
                  may submit to EPA to become eligible for reimbursement of storage costs.
              —   Establish procedures for the indemnification of owners of suspended and
                  canceled pesticides.
              -   Amend the  Agency's responsibility for accepting for disposal suspended and
                  canceled pesticides.
Sector Notebook Project                      117                              September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry	Compliance and Enforcement History


V. COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT HISTORY

V.A.  Background

             Until recently, EPA has focused much of its attention on measuring
             compliance with specific environmental statutes. This approach allows the
             Agency to track compliance with the Clean Air Act, the Resource
             Conservation and Recovery Act, the Clean Water Act, and other
             environmental statutes. Within the last several years, the Agency has begun to
             supplement single-media compliance indicators with facility-specific,
             multimedia indicators of compliance.  In doing so, EPA is in a better position
             to track compliance with all statutes at the facility level and within specific
             industrial sectors.

             A major step in building the capacity to compile multimedia data for industrial
             sectors was the creation of EPA's Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis
             (IDEA) system.  IDEA has the capacity to "read into" the Agency's single-
             media databases, extract compliance records, and match the records to
             individual facilities.  The IDEA system can match air, water, waste,
             toxics/pesticides, EPCRA, Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), and enforcement
             docket records for a given facility and generate a list of historical permit,
             inspection, and enforcement activity.  IDEA also has the capability to analyze
             data by geographic area and corporate holder.  As the capacity to generate
             multimedia compliance data improves, EPA will make available more in-
             depth compliance and enforcement information.  Additionally, EPA is
             developing sector-specific measures of success for compliance assistance
             efforts.

V.B.  Compliance and Enforcement Profile Description

             This section uses inspection, violation, and enforcement data from the IDEA
             system to provide information about the historical compliance and
             enforcement activity of this sector.     	
             While other sector notebooks  have
                 , _    ,   , T  .    .  .                Note: Many of the previously
             used Standard Industrial                published sector notebooks contained
Classification (SIC) data from the
Toxics Release Inventory System
(TRIS) to define their data sampling
universes, none of the SIC codes
associated with the livestock
production sector identifies facilities
that report to the TRI program. As
such, sector-defining data have been
provided from EPA data systems        not b™ mcluded m thls sector
                                     notebook.
                                                   a chapter titled "Chemical Release
                                                   and Transfer Profile. " The
                                                   information and data for that chapter
                                                   were taken primarily from EPA's
                                                   Toxic Release Inventory (TRI).
                                                   Because the industries discussed in
                                                   this notebook do not, in general,
                                                   directly report to TRI, that chapter has
Sector Notebook Project                     119                           September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry	Compliance and Enforcement History


              linked to EPA's Facility Indexing System (FINDS), which tracks facilities in
              all media databases. This section does not attempt to define the actual number
              of facilities that fall within each sector. Instead, the section portrays the
              records of a subset of facilities within the sector that are well defined within
              EPA databases.

              As a check on the relative size of the full sector universe, most notebooks
              contain an estimated number of facilities within the sector according to the
              Bureau of Census. With sectors dominated by small businesses, such as metal
              finishers and printers, the reporting universe within the EPA databases may be
              small in comparison to Census data.  However, the group selected for
              inclusion in this data analysis section should be consistent with this sector's
              general make-up.

              Before presenting the data, the next section defines general terms and the
              column heads used in the data tables.  The data represent a retrospective
              summary of inspections and enforcement actions and solely reflect EPA, state,
              and local compliance assurance activities that have been entered into EPA
              databases. To identify trends, EPA ran two data queries,  one for five calendar
              years (March 7, 1992 to March 6, 1997) and the other for a twelve-month
              period (March 7, 1996 to March 6, 1997). The five-year analysis gives an
              average level of activity for that period for comparison to the more recent
              activity.

              Because most inspections focus on single-media requirements, the data
              queries presented  in this section are taken from single media databases. These
              databases do not provide data on whether inspections are state/local or EPA-
              led. However, the table breaking down the universe of violations does give
              the reader a crude measurement of the EPA's and state's efforts within each
              media program. The presented data illustrate the variations across EPA
              regions for certain sectors1. This variation may be attributable to state/local
              data entry variation, specific  geographic concentrations, proximity to
              population centers, sensitive  ecosystems, highly toxic chemicals used in
              production, or historical noncompliance.  Hence, the exhibited data do not
              rank regional performance or necessarily reflect which regions may have the
              most compliance problems.
JEPA Regions are as follows: I (CT, MA, ME, RI, NH, VT); II (NJ, NY, PR, VI); III (DC, DE, MD,
PA, VA, WV); IV (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN); V (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI); VI (AR, LA,
NM, OK, TX); VII (IA, KS, MO, NE); VIII (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY); IX (AZ, CA, HI, NV,
Pacific Trust Territories); X (AK, ID, OR, WA).
Sector Notebook Project                    120                            September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry	Compliance and Enforcement History


       Compliance and Enforcement Data Definitions

       General Definitions

             Facility Indexing System (FINDS) - assigns a common facility number to
             EPA single-media permit records, establishing a linkage capability to the
             permit data. The FINDS identification number allows EPA to compile and
             review all permit, compliance, enforcement, and pollutant release data for any
             given regulated facility.

             Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis (IDEA) - is a data integration
             system that can retrieve information from the major EPA program office
             databases.  IDEA uses the FINDS identification number to link separate data
             records from EPA's databases.  This allows retrieval of records from across
             media or statutes for any given facility, this creating a "master list" of records
             for that facility.  Some of the data systems accessible through IDEA are AFS
             (Air Facility Indexing and Retrieval System, Office of Air and Radiation),
             PCS (Permit Compliance System, Office of Water), RCRIS (Resource
             Conservation and Recovery Information System, Office of Solid Waste),
             NCBD (National Compliance DataBase, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and
             Toxic Substances), CERCLIS (Comprehensive Environmental and Liability
             Information System, Superfund), and TRIS. IDEA also contains information
             from outside sources, such as Dun and Bradstreet (DUN) and the
             Occupational Safety and Health  Administration (OSHA).  Most data queries
             displayed in this section were conducted using IDEA.

       Data Table Column Heading Definitions

             Facilities in Search - based on the universe of TRI reporters within the listed
             SIC code range. For industries not covered under TRI reporting requirements,
             or industries in which only a very small fraction of facilities report to TRI, the
             notebook uses the FINDS universe for executing data queries. The SIC code
             range selected for each search is defined by each notebook's selected SIC code
             coverage described in Section II.

             Facilities Inspected - indicates the level of EPA and state agency inspections
             for the facilities in this data search.  These values show what percentage of the
             facility universe is inspected in a one-year or five-year period.

             Number of Inspections - measures the total number of inspections conducted
             in this sector.  An inspection event is counted each time it is entered into a
             single media database.
Sector Notebook Project                    121                           September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry	Compliance and Enforcement History


             Average Time Between Inspections - provides an average length of time,
             expressed in months, between compliance inspections at a facility within the
             defined universe.

             Facilities With One or More Enforcement Actions - expresses the number of
             facilities that were the subject of at least one enforcement action within the
             defined time period. This category is broken down further into federal and
             state actions.  Data are obtained for administrative, civil/judicial, and criminal
             state actions.  A facility with multiple enforcement actions is only counted
             once in this column, e.g., a facility with 3 enforcement actions counts as 1
             facility.

             Total Enforcement Actions - describes the  total number of enforcement
             actions identified for an industrial sector across all environmental statutes. A
             facility with multiple enforcement actions is counted multiple times (i.e., a
             facility with 3 enforcement actions counts as 3).

             State Lead Actions - shows what percentage of the total enforcement actions
             are taken by state and local environmental agencies. Varying levels of use by
             states of EPA data systems may limit the volume of actions accorded state
             enforcement activity. Some states extensively report enforcement activities
             into EPA data systems, while other states may use their own data systems.

             Federal Lead Actions - shows what percentage of the total enforcement
             actions are taken by the U.S. EPA. This value includes referrals from state
             agencies. Many of these actions result from coordinated or joint federal/state
             efforts.

             Enforcement to Inspection Rate - is a ratio of enforcement actions to
             inspections, and is presented for comparative purposes only. The ratio is a
             rough  indicator of the relationship between  inspections and enforcement. It
             relates the number of enforcement actions and the number of inspections that
             occurred within the one-year or five-year period.  This ratio includes
             inspections and enforcement actions reported under the Clean Water Act
             (CWA), the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the Resource Conservation and
             Recovery Act (RCRA). Inspections and actions from the
             TSCA/FIFRA/EPCRA database are not factored into this ratio because most
             of the  actions taken under these programs are not the result of facility
             inspections. Also, this ratio does not account for enforcement actions arising
             from non-inspection compliance monitoring activities (e.g., self-reported
             water discharges) that can result in enforcement action within the CAA,  CWA
             and RCRA.

             Facilities with One or More Violations Identified - expresses the percentage
             of inspected facilities having a violation identified in one of the following  data
Sector Notebook Project                    122                            September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry	Compliance and Enforcement History


              categories: In Violation or Significant Violation Status (CAA); Reportable
              Noncompliance, Current Year Noncompliance, Significant Noncompliance
              (CWA); Noncompliance and Significant Noncompliance (FIFRA, TSCA, and
              EPCRA); Unresolved Violation and Unresolved High Priority Violation
              (RCRA).  The values presented for this column reflect the extent of
              noncompliance within the measured time frame, but do not distinguish
              between the severity of the noncompliance. Violation status may be a
              precursor to an enforcement action, but does not necessarily indicate that an
              enforcement action will occur.

              Media Breakdown of Enforcement Actions and Inspections - four columns
              identify the proportion of total inspections and enforcement actions within
              EPA Air,  Water, Waste, and TSCA/FIFRA/EPCRA databases. Each column
              is a percentage of either the "Total Inspections," or the "Total Actions"
              column.

V.C.  Livestock Production Industry Compliance History

              Exhibit 19 provides an overview of the   ,.T  ,  T  .   ,,,       , .   ,   ,
                    ,   r   ,.       ,    „             Note: It should be noted that the data
              reported compliance and enforcement
                                                    presented in this section represent
              data for the livestock sector over a 5-     federal enforcement activity only.
                                                    Enforcement activity conducted at
                                                    the state level is not included in this
                                                    analysis.
year period (March 1992 to March
1997). These data are also broken out
by EPA regions thereby permitting
geographical comparisons. A few
points evident from the data are listed
below.

       Of the 1,001  facilities identified through IDEA with livestock SIC
       codes, approximately 20 percent (205) were inspected in the last 5
       years.

•       Region 4 had more inspections (163) than other regions and the most
       enforcement actions (9), accounting for 29 percent of the total
       enforcement actions.

•       Region 10 had only 3 percent of the total inspections, but had 16
       percent of the total enforcement actions yielding the highest
       enforcement/inspection ratio of 0.29.

•       The total inspections (600) conducted nationwide have resulted in 31
       enforcement actions, which results in an enforcement-to-inspection
       rate of 0.05.  This means that for every 100 inspections conducted,
       there are approximately 5 resulting enforcement actions.
Sector Notebook Project                     123                           September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry	Compliance and Enforcement History
                    Enforcement actions were primarily state-led (84%). Regions 7 and 9
                    had no enforcement actions.

                    Several regions (1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10) had an average time between
                    inspections of greater than 100 months.
Sector Notebook Project                    124                            September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry
             Compliance and Enforcement History





1^

V5
s
•a
=
o
"&r
4*

-J
4*
"ฃ
^
^ซ
'—
i
s
s


w
=
.2
"a
S
o
U
^

C5
,^^
=
i
w
=
W
1^
CS
•?
i
[V,
MH
a\
in
la
la
W















HH




W






O





ta









W




Q


U



CQ



^

^
1 ฐ
il 2

!- M (V
IS

a g 73 a

^ -a 4> *C
a^ [jj 4f*

•a
ซ 03 ป>
8^|
Q) -^ tj
PM 2 •*!
M
ซ
^
•3 S a
g S o
w

L-
o
a 1
•S S <•>
•s g a a
F i: ซ o
ซ fi y '-B
.^ S o ^
a 'a
•3 w
C3
U.

^
J-
fl IK
1 U
|ll
|ซ|
^
ป>
o a
!- .2
^ tj
S c.
z s
X 73
0) 0)
* S"
fefi
ป> -=

^3 J
fe .S
=
o
'ง"
ซ
0

t-
o
o


0





xo
0
o



^H





^H








^H
^H
^^



^
— H



VO


OS






>
,




1
1





i





0





0








^H
in
^o



o
CN



^


t-
tN




M
>
^
O
O


0





xo
0
O



^H





^H








OS
0




f-




CN



,




:





i





0





0








^H
f-j




oo
t-



•n


o






><
OS
tN
o


0
tN




xo
0
oo









^H








O

tN



t-




VO


oo






X
in
o
o


1
i-H




xo
^>
oo



^H
m




0
tN







o
0




o
0



•n
0
tN


g

-T

J

H
ฐ
Sector Notebook Project
125
September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry	Compliance and Enforcement History


Comparison of Enforcement Activity Between Selected Industries

             Exhibits 20 and 21 allow the compliance history of the livestock production
             sector to be compared to other industries covered by the sector notebooks.
             Comparisons between these exhibits permit the identification of trends in
             compliance and enforcement records of the various industries by comparing
             data covering a 5-year period (March 1992 to March 1997) to that of a 1-year
             period (March 1996 to March 1997). Some points evident from the data are
             listed below.

             •      The one-year enforcement-to-inspection ratio (0.01) is one-fifth of the
                    five-year ratio (0.05).

                    In the 5-year comparison, the average months between inspections
                    (100) was more than any other sector.

             •      In Exhibit 20, the livestock production industry data approximate the
                    averages of the industries shown for percent state-lead versus federal-
                    led actions.

             •      In Exhibit 21, when compared to all sectors over the period March
                    1996 - March 1997, the livestock sector had the third fewest number of
                    inspections conducted (146) and fewest enforcement actions (2).

             Exhibits 22 and 23 provide a more in-depth comparison between the livestock
             production sector and other sectors by breaking out compliance and
             enforcement data by environmental statute. As in the previous exhibits
             (Exhibits 20 and 21), the data cover a 5-year period (Exhibit 22) and a 1-year
             period (Exhibit 23) to facilitate the identification of recent trends. Points
             evident from the data are listed below.

             •      As shown in Exhibit 22, over the past 5 years, more than half (57%) of
                    all inspections conducted at livestock facilities and nearly two-thirds
                    (65%) of all enforcement actions have been under the Clean Water
                    Act. It should be noted that 3 percent of all enforcement actions were
                    taken under the FIFRA/TSCA/EPCRA/Other category although no
                    inspections were conducted within that category.  This number is
                    possible because in many EPA regions, media inspectors are being
                    trained to examine the facility from a multimedia viewpoint.

             •      As shown in Exhibits 22 and 23, Clean Water Act inspections account
                    for more than half (57% and 51%, respectively) of all inspections, with
                    the Clean Air Act representing nearly all of the remaining inspections
                    (38% and 48%, respectively). However, from March  1996 - March
Sector Notebook Project                    126                            September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry	Compliance and Enforcement History
                     1997, every single enforcement action taken was under the Clean
                     Water Act.
Sector Notebook Project                     127                            September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry
             Compliance and Enforcement History




2

1
•a
HH
S
^
O
i,
ซS
i
=
s
QJ
U
=
sS
&
=
O
U
=
sS
C
1
i
=

^^
1
^
S







-
HH


W



O




tu







w



Q



U
CO







S ^
Enforcenie
to
Inspectiol
Rate
I!-3!
•ซ
= aj ฃ
u " .2
o3 ** w
PH ^ ^

1 =
•3 S .2
| g-g
H5a^
H =
1 gl

ซ ง s ,ง
3 o ซS -<
C3 ^^
fe td


qj x 5- fl
bxi jj oj ,ฎ
S "H I "S
v S w

s ซ
s V
w m


S-i

Industry S
m
o
0
1
ฃ




S



o






o
o
' '



ง
^o


If)
o
'
|Automobile Asseml
0

0
Ol
vO
r-



f-
Ol



vS






Ol





o
Ol
' '

oo
1 — 1

f-
Ol





| Aero space
m
i — i
0
1
^
oo



Ol



o
Ol






ON





m
Ol


r-


5



S-H
ed
|| Shipbuilding and R

o
0
1
ฃ
oo



r-



r-






'sO





o
Ol

m
CN

oo
t~-K




o
||<3round Transportat

o
0
1
vO




0



'sO






oo





oo


Ol
1 — 1

s




a
1 Water Transportatic
0

0
0s
Ol
oo
oo



S;



oo






^
Ol




p


-
Ol

1





.0
VO
o
0
1
ฃ
t-~



oo



0






^
' — 1




0

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry
             Compliance and Enforcement History











u
•c
•a
a
HH
"S
-^^
o
—
ฃ

<ฃ
t
&
g
B
s

a
o
a
.S

I
0
U
•o
1
B
&

ซ2
a
j3
0|
i
O
iH
.ti
^
2











w





o







tu













w






Q




U


CO








^

5; i
s T
s ^
|i
S c
td ^

"S
— E
"o J
|

g ^
i ^

"1

^ ง
E i
v ^
2 ฃ
'ซ w




O
2

0 K

S|
5 -3
l>
3
S
o

1
E
z

.a
a

VI
.'-
•ง
'ซ
r?





C
1
s:
1
•a
c



V
'I




=
•^


•K
C

1




A
z



ซ
"S
V

U
PH


1
a
Z
i

y
=-
H

S
u
I
=
•H
=
3
^i
=







^
o
o




r)





r)





n




eปD
_a

5
|| Non-Metallic Mineral
^.
o
o




Ol





vO
VO





0





xO

>n





VO



0>
Ol



Ol
f-


K









|| Textiles
0

o




Ol





1





5





xO

VO





Ol



0




o\
Ol


Ol









|| Lumber and Wood
Ol
o
o




^
• — 1




ง





<*





s?

T>





vo
(^)


ON
•^t



^.
r~)




0^





oo
Ol





xO

vo





f^
K


s
01^
1 — '


Ol
oo


Ol
oo
>n








OD
E
VO
o
o




^
Ol




vO
o





s





xO
oo
^





^
iQ


oo
>r~)



o
0
Ol


5









|| Inorganic Chemicals
OV
o
o




VO
01




^





VO





s?
oo
oo






0



0


vo
CN



OV
m


t-~
s









|| Aerospace
oo
o
o




^.





1





m





vO

oo





OV
"


-




01
Ol


5








• b
|| Shipbuilding and Repa
^.
o
o




0-)
0
1 '



vO





oo





^

^





, 	 ,
oo
vo


g^
^
of


^
oo


vo
oo
K








|| Ground Transportation
oo
o
o




^
• — 1




I





0





xO
m
VO





01

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry
             Compliance and Enforcement History









1
•O

hH
"3

i-
*i
•B
S
55
_ฃ
e
cS
S
B
s
i
g
g
ฃ
a
H
^
=


=

a
%

sS
^H
i

ฃ
f**1
fS
Z
2









E =
5 .0

1^
X
g
— 1 g
it
i


VI ^
V u
S "S
3 8.
21



o

^1
1
^
p^


o


Jฐ
VO

S


X?



^0
f~

•— '

1



, 	 ,

•— '




O
0
'sQ
• — i



oo









OD
'S
il
1
g



0s


^


1


oo
CS


xO
oo




^
'sO

^



CS

•— '




oo
m



, 	 ,
?








'S
o
xO
m


o


^
, 	 1

g


0?



"?
?D




^
VO

t-~



ON
0





O
VO



CS
S








[[Oil and Gas Extractior
^
nl


o


^


g


0?



-^0
If




o^
oo

ฃ



CS

'sO




'sO
oo
CS



m
0
oo




eปD
_a
•S

((Non-Metallic Mineral
xO
'sQ


0s


^
, 	 1

xO
oo


^



xO
CS




oj;
v->

oo



m
oo





i
1 — 1



f^
VO








[[Textiles
^0
?D


2-H


g
r^i

!


'sO



xO
'sO




o^
^

1



!/->
VO





VO
CS



nl
S








[[Lumber and Wood
2?
^t-


2-H


^
^-

i


o



xO
01




CS
•*

1



, 	 ,






ฃ
CS



'sO
oo








|| Furniture
ฃ
•*ฑ


oi


^
, 	 i

1


oo



xO
01




ON
"">

g



oo
r-





o
m
^t



o









a
ed
PH
13
f
^0
^f


g


^
CS

ฃ


S?



s^
S->




?f
'sO

1



oo
CS
"*




'sO
t~^



CS
o
CS"








OS)
'ฃ
ฃ



^


^
CS

1?


0?
CS


-^0
S->




X
•*

1



CS
CS
•— '




o
• — 1



o\
CS








||Pharmaceuticals
ฃ
'sO


1


^
CS

!


s?
CS


xo
So




CS
•*

Pi



oo

^




CS
^t




CS








||lron and Steel
xO
•^


8


^


1


o



^





^~
•*

1



, 	 ,

•— '




m
CS



^j.
CS








||Metal Castings
xO
0


^


^


1


^



xO
oo




o^
^"

oo



^-

•— '




o
'sO
• — 1



, 	 ,
^








||Nonferrous Metals
xO
m


0s
CS


^


vO


g



xo
CS




rn
m

1



O
0
'sQ




^
t~^



oo
oo^








((Fabricated Metal
xO
t~^


CS


^


^


^



xO
rn




CS


oo



, 	 ,

CS




o
0
^J-



r*i
oo








((Electronics
xO
^


CS


^


^


1



xO
oo




X
m

ง



m

^f




^
>n



t-~
CS








[[Automobile Assembly
xO
o\


ฃ


0ฐ


1


g



"?
o




w
C^l

m



f^
CS
•— '




'sO
• — 1



^J.
oo








(1 Aerospace
xO
m


5S


^


1


0s
CS


xO
%




S-)
CS

1



CS






CS




f^
m






^

|| Shipbuilding and Repi
xO
m


0s


^


CS


g



xO
CS




g
•*

i



^.

t~~




I
cs"



r^i
CS








||Ground Transportatior
xO
^


g


^


1


0?
nl


^0
m




ON
CS

i



o






'sO
oo




CS
S








||Water Transportation
xO
O


o


S?
-.j-

g


o
CS


^
^




1


CS



r-






S




, 	 ,
C^








||Air Transportation
xO
ir>


0s


^
, 	 i

xO


'sO
CS


xO
CS




SN
v->

S



o\
oo
^




o
cs^
^f1



'sO
cs"






o5

(JFossil Fuel Electric Po
xO
O


o


g
1^

^


'sQ



xO
^1




^
CS

i



'sO






oc
r*^



o
CN








|lDrvCleanin2
Sector Notebook Project
130
September 2000

-------
 Agricultural Livestock Production Industry
                                                      Compliance and Enforcement History
   2 o
   ฃ%
   fa td
        •s 3 ง
        xซ o B
     11


     El
     o a.

         11
         H -53

         •S S.
        •s 3
        xซ o 'B
-^^
sS

55
•a

eซ

=


u

a

=
O
I

0
        o ซ S

        ^ ? -B
    =


    ^ซ
    u
     i i
     H ซ
 "3 S 2


 H||
       2 "S

      1^
       3 o-
ndust
E
G

R
Orga

                                                          O
                                                          O

                                                               o
Cl
A
 Sector Notebook Project
                                         131
September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry	Compliance and Enforcement History
                  THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Sector Notebook Project                    132                           September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry	Review of Major Legal Actions


VI.  REVIEW OF MAJOR LEGAL ACTIONS AND COMPLIANCE/ENFORCEMENT
STRATEGIES

             This section provides summary information about major cases that have
             affected the livestock production industry, as well as regional highlights of
             CAPO compliance/enforcement strategies.

             Usually, this section also contains information on any supplemental
             environmental projects (SEPs) that were negotiated. SEPs are compliance
             agreements that reduce a facility's stipulated penalty in return for an
             environmental project that exceeds the value of the reduction. However, no
             information on SEPs in this sector was discovered during the research process.
             Often, these projects fund pollution prevention activities that can significantly
             reduce the future pollutant loadings of a facility. To learn more about SEPs,
             go to http://www.epa.gov/oeca/sep.

       Review of Major Cases

             A review of EPA's FY92 and FY93 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
             and the FY94 through FY98 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
             Accomplishments Report identified several cases involving the livestock
             production industry. These cases are discussed below.

                    In February 1999, EPA cited David Jaindl, president of Jaindl Land
                    Company, for filling in federally protected wetlands at a turkey farm.
                    EPA has alleged that Mr. Jaindl violated the Clean Water Act by
                    filling three acres of wetlands at the farm in September and October
                    1998 without a required permit from the U.S. Army Corps of
                    Engineers.  EPA is seeking a $44,000 penalty for this violation.

             •      In October 1996, an Administrative Penalty Order (APO) with a
                    $25,000 penalty was administered against Del Oro Dairy of New
                    Mexico for failing to provide a Pollution Prevention Plan as required
                    by the NPDES General Permit for Concentrated Animal Feeding
                    Operations. This violation occurred from 1994 thru 1996. In March
                    1997, another Administrative Penalty Order and $5,500 fine was
                    issued for failure to complete and implement a Pollution Prevention
                    Plan. These enforcement actions are intended to prevent the pollution
                    of the groundwater by requiring the facility to apply good management
                    practices.

             •      United States v. Harry James Saul and Ronnie Snead: Harry Saul, part
                    owner and operator of Harry Saul Minnow Farm, Inc., Prairie County,
                    Arkansas, and a company employee, Ronnie Snead, were sentenced on
                    June 19, 1996 by Federal Magistrate Henry Jones for a misdemeanor
Sector Notebook Project                   133                           September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry	Review of Major Legal Actions


                    violation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
                    (FIFRA). The defendants had mixed furadan, a restricted use
                    pesticide, with minnows and spread the treated minnows on a levee on
                    the minnow farm to control nuisance birds.  Saul was ordered to pay a
                    $5,000 fine and Snead a $1,000 fine for use inconsistent with the label.
                    The defendants are appealing the Court's judgement.

                    During fiscal year 1996, Esplin Dairy allegedly discharged
                    approximately 900,000 pounds per year of animal waste to a slough
                    discharging to Nehalem Bay, Oregon.  In response to an EPA order,
                    the dairy set up a system to keep manure from contaminating clean
                    water and installed a 10,000 gallon tank to collect wastewater before
                    pumping it to larger containment facilities. The wastewater is high in
                    fecal coliform bacteria, BOD, TSS, and nutrients.

              •      The Four Brothers Dairy paid a penalty of $7,350 in fiscal year 1996
                    for the alleged unpermitted discharge of an estimated 561,000 gallons
                    of wastewater from its Shoshone, Idaho dairy to a canal draining to the
                    Snake River.  EPA measured fecal coliform levels as high as 180,000
                    colonies/100ml in the wastewater in the canal.

              •      Gienger Farms, Inc.  allegedly discharged approximately 1.3  million
                    gallons of manure-laden wastewater to drainage ditches flowing into
                    the Tillamook Bay, Oregon, without a permit. In fiscal year  1996, in
                    response to an EPA administrative complaint, the farm paid a $20,000
                    penalty and modified its operations to separate clean water from
                    contaminated material, thereby extending the holding capacity of its
                    wastewater storage lagoon from two to 57 days.  In addition, the
                    facility began monitoring and managing its land application practices,
                    thus preventing the discharge of wastewater containing about 6,435
                    pounds of BOD and TSS to waters of the U.S.

              •      In fiscal  year 1996, Misty Meadow Dairy agreed to pay a $6,000 fine
                    for the alleged unpermitted discharge of about 685,000 pounds of
                    manure per year to navigable waters flowing into Tillamook Bay,
                    Oregon.  The dairy is expected to sell half of its herd in order to allow
                    more flexibility in managing waste accumulations.

              •      In fiscal  year 1996, Veeman Dairy paid a $1,000 penalty for allegedly
                    discharging 52 to 78 million gallons of wastewater to navigable waters
                    flowing into the Willamette River, Oregon.  In response to a separate
                    compliance order, the dairy will repair and maintain its wastewater
                    storage ponds to eliminate future discharges.
Sector Notebook Project                    134                           September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry	Review of Major Legal Actions


             •      In March 1998, a significant criminal enforcement case was taken by
                    the California Resource Board. The U.S. District Court assessed the
                    operator of the 3H Dairy Farm in Oakdale, CA a $100,000 fine;
                    $101,000 in farm improvements; 90 days in jail; 90 days of home
                    confinement; and 4 years of probation for repeatedly violating state
                    water pollution laws.

       Regional Initiatives

             According to the FY 1997 and FY 1998 Enforcement and Compliance
             Assurance Accomplishments Reports, several regions targeted their
             enforcement efforts on agricultural practices during these fiscal  years. It
             should be noted that while CAFOs were the primary focus within the
             agriculture sector, there were other agriculture activities as well. Some of the
             Regional initiatives included the following:

                    During FY 96, Region 6 conducted CAFO inspections in the  states of
                    Oklahoma, Texas, and New Mexico. These resulted in the EPA
                    issuing five Orders for non-compliance and two Administrative
                    Penalty Orders. The State of Texas also issued penalty actions to three
                    dairies for violation  of the State permit.  Region 6's emphasis  on
                    CAFOs was on the NPDES general permit and its implementation.
                    Six EPA and 24 state CAFO inspections were conducted in FY97 to
                    determine whether facilities were compliant with the CAFO general
                    permit.  The region continues to improve its knowledge  of the numbers
                    of facilities by the improvement of the database in all states.

                    In FY 1997, Region 7  states took 26 enforcement actions against
                    feedlots for water quality-related violations.  In FY 1998, Iowa settled
                    13 CAFO cases with penalties of $21,238; Kansas settled 4 CAFO
                    cases with $77,520 in penalties; Missouri settled 12 CAFO cases with
                    $20,256 in penalties; and Nebraska settled 2  CAFO cases with $1,700
                    in penalties.

                    In February 1997, Region 9 initiated a Regional Agriculture Team to
                    complement the Agriculture Initiative team by developing a Regional
                    Agriculture Strategy and incorporating agriculture pollution prevention
                    principles into core agency programs.

             •      Through the Region 10 CAFO Whatcom County Initiative, the Region
                    conducted NPDES inspections at 67 targeted facilities; six were issued
                    penalties, three were designated as significant contributors of
                    pollutants, six were issued certificates of merit, and 52 were issued
                    warning letters.
Sector Notebook Project                     135                            September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry	Review of Major Legal Actions
       CAFO Compliance/Enforcement Strategies

                    EPA concluded a total of 93 enforcement cases against this sector in
                    fiscal years 1997, 1998, and 1999 with a total of $163,000 in penalties.
                    In FY 98, Regions conducted 339 compliance inspections. Each
                    Region is working with its NPDES States to develop and implement
                    individual state specific CAFO strategies. Regional highlights include:

                           Region 3 served as the EPA lead on the recently  concluded
                           national Poultry Dialog which included recommendations for
                           actions by the poultry industry. Recently, in a key action
                           growing out of the dialog, Perdue Farms Inc. agreed to help
                           farmers dispose of chicken waste in the Delmarva peninsula
                           region.

                    •      Region 6 held 5 outreach meetings in 4 states in  1998. The
                           Region conducted 95 inspections resulting in 20 administrative
                           orders and 2 administrative penalties.

                    •      Region 7 initiated a compliance tracking system to collect
                           accurate and readily available information about state CAFO
                           enforcement actions and penalty amounts. The Region also
                           developed maps of CAFO locations in Iowa and Kansas by
                           using state databases.

                           Region 9's approach combines compliance assistance and
                           inspections/enforcement. The Region is one of 20+ partners of
                           the California Dairy Initiative which seeks to combine
                           education, outreach, nutrient management plans with third
                           party  certification.  In addition, the Region has developed an
                           inspection targeting approach based on herd size  and proximity
                           to surface water. In 1998, the region conducted 133
                           inspections in 3 counties. The region issued 3 compliance
                           orders and 2 penalty orders  against dairy operators.

                    •      Region 10 expanded its compliance enforcement focus to
                           include an additional 4 other counties in Western Washington
                           State. The Region conducted 58 inspections resulting in 11
                           compliance orders/penalties; 3 compliance orders only; and 33
                           warning letters. Facilities found in compliance were issued
                           courtesy letters. EPA's efforts have succeeded in raising public
                           awareness as indicated by real-estate appraisers asking if EPA
                           has any concerns about the facilities they are appraising.
Sector Notebook Project                     136                           September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry	Compliance Assurance Activities and Initiatives


VII.   COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACTIVITIES AND INITIATIVES

              This section highlights the activities undertaken by this industry sector and
              public agencies to voluntarily improve the sector's environmental
              performance. These activities include those independently initiated by
              industrial trade associations. In this section, the notebook also contains a
              listing and description of national and regional trade associations.

VILA. Sector-Related Environmental Programs and Activities

              There are several federal programs available to the agricultural community to
              assist agricultural producers in complying with environmental regulations and
              reducing pollution.  The following examples represent some industry
              initiatives that promote compliance or assess methods to reduce environmental
              contamination.

       National Agriculture Compliance Assistance Center

              The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with the support of the
              Department of Agriculture (USD A), has developed a national Agriculture
              Compliance Assistance Center (Ag Center) to provide a base for "first-stop
              shopping" for the agricultural 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. Initial efforts will focus on providing information
              about EPA's requirements.  The Ag Center will rely heavily on existing
              sources of agricultural information and established distribution mechanisms.
              The Ag Center is designed so growers, livestock producers, other
              agribusinesses, and agricultural information/education providers can access its
              resources easily — through telephone, fax, mail, and Internet.  The Ag Center
              website can be accessed at http://www.epa.gov/oeca/ag.

       Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations

              As part of President Clinton's Clean Water Action Plan (CWAP),  a USDA-
              EPA unified national strategy has been developed to minimize the water
              quality and public health impacts of animal feeding operations (AFOs). AFOs
              are agricultural enterprises where animals are kept and raised in confined
              situations and have been shown to contribute to significant problems in
              surface waters.  Such problems have included nutrient loading, fish kills, and
              odors. AFOs are agricultural livestock facilities that confine feeding
              activities, concentrating livestock and their manure. There are approximately
Sector Notebook Project                     137                           September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry	Compliance Assurance Activities and Initiatives


             450,000 AFOs in the U.S.  Of these, 6,600 were concentrated AFOs, or
             CAFOs.  CAFOs pose a greater environmental threat, since they confine larger
             numbers of animals. Less than a quarter of CAFOs have Clean Water Act
             permits to control the amount of wastes that run off into waterways.

             The Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations presents USDA
             and EPA's plan for addressing the water quality and public health impacts
             associated with AFOs.  USDA and EPA issued the final Strategy in March
             1999. The USDA-EPA Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding
             Operations reflects several guiding principles:

                    Minimize water quality and public health impacts from AFOs.
             •      Focus on AFOs that represent the greatest risks to the environment and
                    public health.
             •      Ensure that measures to protect the environment and public health
                    complement the long-term sustainability of livestock production in the
                    United States.
                    Establish a national goal and environmental performance expectations
                    for all AFOs.
                    Promote, support, and provide incentives for the use of sustainable
                    agricultural practices  and systems.
                    Build on the strengths of USDA, EPA, State and Tribal agencies,  and
                    other partners and make appropriate use of incentive-base approaches.
                    Foster public confidence that AFOs are meeting their performance
                    expectations and that USDA, EPA, local governments, States, and
                    Tribes are ensuring the protection of water quality and public health.
             •      Coordinate activities among the USDA, EPA, and related State and
                    Tribal agencies and other organizations that influence the management
                    and operation of AFOs.
                    Focus technical and financial assistance to support  AFOs in meeting
                    the national goal and performance expectation established in this
                    Strategy.

             USDA and EPA's goal is for AFO owners and operators to take actions to
             minimize water pollution from confinement facilities and land application of
             manure.  To accomplish this goal, this Strategy is based  on a national
             performance expectation that all AFOs should develop and implement
             technically sound, economically feasible, and site-specific  Comprehensive
             Nutrient Management Plans (CNMPs) to minimize  impacts on water quality
             and public health.

             This Strategy describes short- and long- term activities to implement and
             improve the existing regulatory program using a two-phased approach to
             permitting CAFOs. During Round I, beginning in about 2000, EPA and States
             will issue permits to CAFOs under the existing National Pollutant Discharge
Sector Notebook Project                    138                           September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry	Compliance Assurance Activities and Initiatives


             Elimination System (NPDES) regulations. During Round II, beginning in
             about 2005, EPA and States will reissue NPDES permits to CAFOs based on
             revised effluent guidelines for feedlots, as well as revised regulations for
             NPDES permitting and any other new information. During Round I and
             Round II, State NPDES permitting authorities will have flexibility  to define
             specific permitting approaches within their existing programs.  For more
             information, the complete unified national strategy can be accessed at
             http ://www. epa. gov/owm/fmafost. htm.

       Compliance Assurance Implementation Plan For Concentrated Animal
       Feeding Operations

             The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) is making
             implementation of the existing concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO)
             regulations a priority. The purpose of the implementation plan is to protect
             and enhance water quality by ensuring compliance with the Clean Water Act
             and its implementing requirements. The Plan's major elements are: 1) strong
             state and regional compliance/enforcement partnerships; 2) effective state
             specific compliance/enforcement strategies; 3) productive, coordinated
             compliance assistance activities; 4) strong compliance monitoring programs;
             5) effective enforcement; 6) better data/information on CAFOs for targeting
             compliance assistance and inspections; and 7) plans for developing a feedback
             mechanism to EPA, states, and other federal agencies. This plan was finalized
             in March  1998. For more information, refer to
             http://es.epa.gov/oeca/strategy.html.

VII.B. EPA Programs and Activities

             Section 319 Nonpoint Source Management Program
             In 1987, Congress amended the Clean Water Act (CWA) to establish the  ง319
             Nonpoint Source Management Program in recognition of the need  for greater
             federal  leadership to help focus state and local nonpoint source efforts.  Under
             ง319, states, territories, and Indian tribes receive grant money to support a
             wide variety of activities, including technical  assistance, financial assistance,
             education, training, technology transfer, demonstration projects,  and
             monitoring to assess the success of specific nonpoint source implementation
             projects. For more information about the Clean Water Act ง319 Program
             refer to EPA's Office of Water website at
             http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/sec319.html.

             Clean Lakes Program
             EPA's Clean Lakes Program supports a variety of lake management activities
             including classification, assessment, study, and restoration of lakes. The
             program, authorized  in ง314 of the Clean Water Act, was established to
             provide technical and financial assistance to states/tribes for restoring the
Sector Notebook Project                     139                           September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry	Compliance Assurance Activities and Initiatives


             quality of publicly owned lakes. The Clean Lakes Program has funded
             approximately $145 million for grant activities since 1976 to address lake
             problems, but there have been no appropriations for the program since 1994.
             EPA has not requested funds for the Clean Lakes Program in recent years, but
             has encouraged states to use ง319 funds to fund "eligible activities that might
             have been funded in previous years under Section 314." Information on the
             Clean Lakes Program is available at the following Internet site:
             http://www.epa.gov/owow/lakes/cllkspgm.html.

             National Estuary Program
             EPA's National Estuary Program is a national demonstration program,
             authorized in ง320 of the Clean Water Act, that uses a comprehensive
             watershed management approach to address water quality and habitat
             problems in 17 estuaries.  Nonpoint source pollution is a major contributor of
             contaminants in the estuary and coastal waters around the country. In this
             program, EPA and states/tribes develop conservation and management plans
             that recommend priority corrective actions to restore estuarine water quality,
             fish populations, and other designated uses of the waters. Information on the
             National Estuary Program is available at the following Internet site:
             http://www.epa.gov/owowwtrl/estuaries/nep.html or by contacting the
             National Estuary Program Office at (202) 260-1952.

             Chesapeake Bay Program and The Great Lakes National Program
             EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program  and the Great Lakes National Program focus
             substantial resources on understanding  the extent of nonpoint source pollution
             problems in their respective watersheds and supporting State implementation
             of non-point source pollution controls.  Since 1984, the Chesapeake Bay
             Program, in particular, has supported the implementation of a substantial
             amount of animal waste management practices through State cost share
             programs funded jointly by the Bay States and EPA.  Information on the
             Chesapeake Bay Program is available at
             http://www.epa.gov/owowwtr 1 /ecoplaces/part 1 /site2.html.  Information on
             The Great Lakes National Program is available at http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/.

             AgSTAR Program
             The AgSTAR program is a voluntary program that promotes the use of
             profitable manure management systems that reduce pollution. The program, a
             component of President Clinton's Climate Action Plan, is based on a
             computer model that shows the economic value of capturing the methane
             naturally produced by manure.

             AgSTAR, a joint program of EPA, USD A, and the Department of Energy,
             helps agricultural producers determine which methane recovery and use
             technologies will work best for them, and develops financing sources to help
             with start-up costs. By  investing  in these technologies, AgSTAR participants
Sector Notebook Project                    140                           September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry	Compliance Assurance Activities and Initiatives


              realize substantial returns through reduced electrical, gas, and oil bills,
              revenues from high quality manure by-products, and savings on manure
              management operational costs.  Partners also reduce pollution associated with
              water resources, odors, and global warming.  Information on AgSTAR is
              available at the following Internet site:
              http://yosemite.epa.gov/methane/home.nsf/pages/agstar.

              Ruminant Livestock Efficiency Program (RLEP)
              Ruminant livestock such as cattle and sheep are the largest source of methane
              emissions resulting from human activity. Methane, produced as part of the
              animals' normal digestive process, is a potent greenhouse gas that contributes
              to global climate change. By improving livestock production efficiency,
              producers can both increase profits and reduce methane emissions.

              The RLEP is a joint EPA-USDA program helping livestock producers
              improve their operations' efficiency, preserve the nation's natural resources
              and reduce methane emissions.  The program focuses on reducing livestock
              methane emissions and producing economic benefits by offering technical
              assistance to producers around the country. For more information, review the
              Program Overview at http://yosemite.epa.gov/methane/home.nsf/pages/rlep to
              learn how RLEP is helping improve the environment and livestock producers'
              profits.

              Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program
              EPA's Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program (PESP) is a voluntary
              program dedicated to protecting human health and preserving the environment
              by reducing the risks associated with pesticide use.  The partnership is a key
              element of the program, which is sponsored by EPA, USD A, and FDA.
              Current partners include agricultural producers as well as non-agricultural
              interests. Partners in PESP volunteer to develop and implement a well
              designed pesticide management plan that will produce the safest and most
              effective way to use pesticides.  In turn, EPA provides a liaison to assist the
              partner in developing comprehensive, achievable goals. Liaisons act as
              "customer service representatives" for EPA, providing the partner with access
              to information and personnel. EPA also promises to integrate the partners'
              stewardship plans into its agricultural policies and programs.
              So far, agricultural producers have
              committed to a number of projects,
              including conducting more research into
              IPM techniques, developing computer
              prediction models for more precise
              pesticide applications, educating their
              members and the public regarding
              pesticide use, and working with
    Focus on Pesticides
EPA's Endangered Species
Protection Program is
designed to protect Federally-
listed endangered and
threatened species from
exposure to pesticides.
Sector Notebook Project                    141                           September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry	Compliance Assurance Activities and Initiatives


              equipment manufacturers to refine application techniques.  Information on
              PESP is available at the following Internet site: http://www.pesp.org, or
              contact the PESP hotline at (800) 972-7717.

              Endangered Species Protection Program
              The Endangered Species Protection Program (ESPP) began in 1988. This
              program  is largely voluntary at the present time and relies  on cooperation
              between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), EPA Regions, States, and
              pesticide users.  ESPP is intended to provide information concerning and
              regulation for the use of pesticides that may adversely affect the survival,
              reproduction and/or food supply of listed species.  Due to labeling
              requirements, potential users will be informed prior to making a purchase that
              there may be local limitations on product use due to  endangered species
              concerns. Information on the Endangered Species Protection Program is
              available at the following Internet site:
              http://www.epa.gov/oppfeadl/endanger/index.htm.

              Energy Starฎ Buildings and Green Lightsฎ Partnership
              In 1991, EPA introduced Green Lightsฎ, a program designed for businesses
              and organizations to proactively combat pollution by installing energy-
              efficient lighting technologies in their commercial and industrial buildings.  In
              April  1995, Green Lightsฎ expanded into Energy Starฎ Buildings— a
              strategy that optimizes whole-building energy-efficiency opportunities. The
              energy needed to run  commercial and industrial buildings in the United States
              produces 19 percent of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, 12 percent of nitrogen
              oxides, and 25 percent of sulfur dioxide, at a cost of $110 billion a year. If
              implemented in every U.S.  commercial and industrial building, the Energy
              Starฎ Buildings upgrade approach could prevent up to 35 percent of the
              emissions associated with these buildings and cut the nation's energy bill by
              up to $25 billion annually.

              The more than 2,900 participants include corporations, small businesses,
              universities, health care facilities, nonprofit organizations,  school districts,  and
              federal and local governments. As of March 31, 1999, Energy StarฎBuildings
              and Green Lightsฎ Program participants are saving $775 million in energy
              bills with an annual savings of 31.75 kilowatt per square foot and annual cost
              savings of $0.47 per square foot.  By joining, participants agree to upgrade  90
              percent of their owned facilities with energy-efficient lighting and 50 percent
              of their owned facilities with whole-building upgrades, where profitable, over
              a seven-year period. Energy Starฎ participants first reduce  their energy loads
              with the Green Lightsฎ approach to building tune-ups, then focus on "right
              sizing" their heating and cooling equipment to match their  new energy needs.
              EPA's Office of Air and Radiation is responsible for operating the Energy
              Starฎ Buildings and Green Lightsฎ Program.  (Contact: Energy Star Hotline,
Sector Notebook Project                    142                            September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry	Compliance Assurance Activities and Initiatives


              1-888-STAR-YES (1-888-782-7937) or Maria Tikoff Vargas, Co-Director at
              (202) 564-9178 or visit the website at http://www.epa.gov/buildings.

              WasteWiSe Program
              The WasteWiSe Program was started in 1994 by EPA's Office of Solid Waste
              and Emergency Response. The program is aimed at reducing municipal solid
              wastes by promoting waste prevention, recycling collection, and the
              manufacturing and purchase of recycled products. As of 1998, the program
              had about 700 business, government, and institutional partners.  Partners agree
              to identify and implement actions to reduce their solid wastes by setting waste
              reduction goals and providing EPA with yearly progress reports for a three-
              year period. EPA, in turn, provides partners with technical assistance,
              publications, networking opportunities, and national and regional recognition.
              (Contact: WasteWiSe Hotline at (800) 372-9473 or Joanne Oxley, EPA
              Program Manager, (703) 308-0199.)

              Climate Wise Program
              In October 1993, President Clinton unveiled the Climate Change Action Plan
              (CCAP) in honor of the United States' commitment to reducing its greenhouse
              gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. Climate Wise, a  project jointly
              sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy and EPA, is one of the projects
              initiated under CCAP.

              Climate Wise is a partnership between government and  industry that offers
              companies a nonregulatory approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
              Climate Wise state and local  government "allies" work with U.S. industries  to
              develop flexible, comprehensive strategies for achieving energy efficiency and
              pollution prevention. They help local business identify and implement projects
              that often require little capital investment, but promise a high rate of return.
              Companies that become Climate Wise partners receive technical assistance
              and financing information to help them develop and implement cost-effective
              changes. (Contact: Climate Wise Clearinghouse at (301) 230-4736 or visit the
              Climate Wise website at http://www.epa.gov/climatewise/allies.htm or
              http://www.epa.gov/climatewise/index.htm.)

VII.C. USDA Programs and Activities

              Environmental Quality Incentives Program
              The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)  is a USDA funded
              program (led by Natural Resources Conservation Service) that was established
              in the 1996 Farm Bill to provide a voluntary conservation program for farmers
              and ranchers who face serious threats  to soil, water, and related  natural
              resources.  EQIP embodies four of USDA's former conservation programs,
              including the Agricultural Conservation Program, the Water Quality
Sector Notebook Project                    143                            September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry	Compliance Assurance Activities and Initiatives


              Incentives Program, the Great Plains Conservation Program, and the Colorado
              River Basin Salinity Control Program.

              EQIP offers 5 to 10 year contracts that provide incentive payments and cost-
              sharing for conservation practices called for in a site-specific conservation
              plan that is required for all EQIP activities. Cost-sharing may include up to
              75 percent of the costs of certain conservation practices, such as grassed
              waterways, filter strips, manure management facilities, capping abandoned
              wells, and other practices. Incentive payments may be made to encourage land
              management practices such as nutrient management, manure management,
              integrated pest management, irrigation water management, and wildlife habitat
              management. These payments may be provided for up to three years to
              encourage producers to carry out management practices they may not
              otherwise use without the program incentive.

              EQIP has an authorized budget of $1.3 billion through the year 2002. It was
              funded for $174 million in 1999. Total cost-share and incentive payments are
              limited to $10,000 per person per year and $50,000 for the length of the
              contract.  Eligibility is limited to persons who are engaged in livestock or
              agricultural  production. Fifty percent of the funds must be spent on livestock
              production. The 1996 Farm Bill prohibits owners of large confined livestock
              operations from being eligible for cost-share assistance for animal waste
              storage or treatment facilities. However, technical, educational, and financial
              assistance may be provided for other conservation practices on such
              operations. Further information relating to EQIP may be found on NRCS's
              website located at
              http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/OPA/FB96OPA/eqipfact.html.

              Conservation Reserve Program
              The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is a highly successful conservation
              program administered by USDA. Since 1986, CRP has provided financial
              incentives to farmers and ranchers to take land out of agricultural production
              and plant trees, grass and other types of vegetation. The result has been
              reduced soil erosion, improved air and water quality and establishment of
              millions of acres of wildlife habitat.

              With the New Conservation Reserve Program, launched with the final rule
              published in the Federal Register on February 19, 1997, the Farm Service
              Agency (FSA) begins a renewed effort to achieve the full potential of
              government-farmer conservation partnerships. Only the most
              environmentally-sensitive land, yielding the greatest environmental benefits,
              will be accepted into the program.

              The 36.4-million-acre congressionally mandated cap on enrollments is carried
              over from the previous program, meaning that the new CRP has authority to
Sector Notebook Project                     144                           September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry	Compliance Assurance Activities and Initiatives


              enroll only about 15 percent of the eligible cropland. To make the most of the
              program's potential, a new Environmental Benefits Index (EBI) was
              developed. The new EBI will be used to select areas and acreages offering the
              greatest environmental benefits.

              Conservation priority areas (CPAs) are regions targeted for CRP  enrollment.
              The four national CPAs are the Long Island Sound region, the Chesapeake
              Bay and surrounding areas, an  area adjacent to the Great Lakes, and the Prairie
              Pothole region. FSA State Committees may also designate up to 10 percent of
              a State's remaining cropland as a State Conservation Priority Area.  The
              NRCS is responsible for determining the relative environmental benefits of
              each acre offered for participation.

              Continuous Sign-Up. For certain high-priority conservation practices yielding
              highly desirable environmental benefits, producers may sign up at any time,
              without waiting for an announced sign-up period. Continuous sign-up allows
              farmers and ranchers management flexibility in implementing certain
              conservation practices on their cropland. These practices are specially
              designed to achieve significant environmental benefits, giving participants a
              chance to help protect and enhance wildlife habitat, improve air quality, and
              improve the condition of America's waterways. Unlike the general CRP
              program, sign-up for these special practices is open continuously. Provided
              certain  eligibility requirements are met, acreage is automatically accepted into
              the program at a per-acre rental rate not to exceed the Commodity Credit
              Corporation's maximum payment amount, based on site-specific soil
              productivity and local prevailing cash-equivalent rental rates. For more
              information on the CRP, see USDA's website at
              http://www.fsa.usda.gov/dafp/cepd/crpinfo.htm.

              Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program
              The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), a refinement of the
              CRP, is a state-federal conservation partnership program targeted to address
              specific state and nationally significant water quality, soil erosion and wildlife
              habitat issues related to agricultural use. The program uses financial incentives
              to encourage farmers and ranchers to voluntarily enroll in contracts of 10 to 15
              years in duration to remove lands from agricultural production. This
              community-based conservation program provides a flexible design of
              conservation practices and financial incentives to address environmental
              issues.  For more information about CREP, refer to USDA's website at
              http://www.fsa.usda.gov/dafp/cepd/crep/crephome.htm.

              Wetlands Reserve Program
              Congress authorized the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) under the Food
              Security Act of 1985, as amended by the 1990 and 1996 Farm Bills. USDA's
              Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) administers the program in
Sector Notebook Project                     145                           September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry	Compliance Assurance Activities and Initiatives


              consultation with the Farm Service Agency and other Federal agencies. WRP
              is a voluntary program to restore wetlands. Landowners who choose to
              participate in WRP may sell a conservation easement or enter into a cost-share
              restoration agreement with USDA to restore and protect wetlands. The
              landowner voluntarily limits future use of the land, yet retains private
              ownership.

              WRP offers landowners three options: permanent easements., 30-year
              easements, and restoration cost-share agreements of a minimum 10-year
              duration.  In exchange for establishing & permanent easement, the landowner
              receives payment up to the agricultural value of the land and 100 percent of
              the restoration costs for restoring the wetland.  In exchange for the 30-year
              easement, the landowner receives a payment of 75 percent of what would be
              provided for a permanent easement on the same site and 75 percent of the
              restoration cost. The restoration cost-share agreement is an agreement
              (generally for a minimum of 10 years) to re-establish degraded or lost wetland
              habitat, in which USDA pays the landowner 75 percent of the cost of the
              restoration activity. Restoration cost-share agreements establish wetland
              protection and restoration as the primary land use for the duration of the
              agreement. In all instances, landowners continue to control access to their
              land. For more information about WRP, see NRCS's website at:
              http ://wl .fb-net. org.

              Conservation Farm Option
              The Conservation Farm Option (CFO) is a voluntary pilot program for
              producers of wheat, feed grains, cotton, and rice.  The program purposes
              include conservation of soil, water, and related resources, water quality
              protection and improvement, wetland restoration, protection and creation,
              wildlife habitat development and protection, or other similar conservation
              purposes. Eligibility is limited to owners and producers who have contract
              acreage enrolled in the Agricultural Market Transition program.  Participants
              are required to develop and implement a conservation farm plan.  The plan
              becomes part of the CFO contract which covers a ten year period. CFO is not
              restricted as to what measures may be included in the conservation plan, so
              long as they provide environmental benefits. During the contract period the
              owner or producer (1) receives annual payments for implementing the CFO
              contract, and (2) agrees to forgo payments under the Conservation Reserve
              Program, the Wetlands Reserve Program, and the Environmental Quality
              Incentives Program in exchange for one consolidated program.

              Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program
              The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) is a voluntary program
              (administered by NRCS) for people who want to develop and improve wildlife
              habitat primarily on private lands.  It provides both technical assistance and
              cost-share payments to help establish and improve fish and wildlife habitat.
Sector Notebook Project                     146                           September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry	Compliance Assurance Activities and Initiatives


              Under this program, NRCS helps participants prepare a wildlife habitat
              development plan in consultation with the local conservation district. The
              plan describes the landowner's goals for improving wildlife habitat, includes a
              list of practices and a schedule for installing them, and details the steps
              necessary to maintain the habitat for the life of the agreement.  This plan may
              or may not be part of a larger conservation plan that addresses other resource
              needs such as water quality and soil erosion.

              USDA and the participant enter into a cost-share agreement that generally
              lasts between 5 to 10 years from the date the agreement is signed.  Under the
              agreement: the landowner agrees to install and maintain WHIP practices and
              allow NRCS or its agent access to monitor the effectiveness of the practices;
              and USDA agrees to provide technical assistance and pay up to 75 percent of
              the cost of installing the wildlife habitat practices.

              WHIP is  currently budgeted for $50 million total through the year 2002.
              WHIP funds are  distributed to States based on State wildlife habitat priorities,
              which may include wildlife habitat areas, targeted species and their habitats,
              and specific practices.  WHIP may be implemented in cooperation with other
              Federal, State, or local agencies; conservation districts; or private conservation
              groups. For more information, see NRCS's website at
              http://www.nrcs.usda.gov.

              Conservation of Private Grazing Land Initiative
              The Conservation of Private Grazing Land initiative will  ensure that technical,
              educational,  and  related assistance is provided to those who own private
              grazing lands.  It is not a cost share program. This technical assistance will
              offer opportunities for better grazing and land management; protecting soil
              from erosive wind and water; using more energy-efficient ways to produce
              food and  fiber; conserving water; providing habitat for wildlife; sustaining
              forage and grazing plants; using plants to sequester greenhouse gases and
              increase soil organic matter; and using grazing lands as a source of biomass
              energy and raw materials for industrial products.

              The Wetland Conservation Provision (Swampbuster)
              This provision, part of the 1985, 1990, and 1996 farm bills, requires all
              agriculture producers to protect wetlands on the farms they own or  operate if
              they want to be eligible for USDA farm program benefits. The Swampbuster
              program generally allows the continuation of most ongoing farming practices
              as long as wetlands are not converted or wetland drainage increased. The
              program discourages farmers from altering wetlands by withholding Federal
              farm program benefits from any person who does the following:
Sector Notebook Project                     147                           September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry	Compliance Assurance Activities and Initiatives


             S     Plants an agricultural commodity on a converted wetland that was
                    converted by drainage, dredging, leveling or any other means after
                    December 23,  1985.
             S     Converts a wetland for the purpose of or to make agricultural
                    commodity production after November 28, 1990.

             In order to ensure farm program benefits under the Swampbuster provisions,
             the local NRCS office should be contacted before clearing, draining, or
             manipulating any wet areas on any farmland.

VILD. Other Voluntary Initiatives

             NICE3
             The U.S. Department of Energy sponsors a grant program called National
             Industrial Competitiveness through Energy, Environment, and Economics
             (NICE3). The NICE3 program provides funding to state and industry
             partnerships (large and small businesses) for projects demonstrating advances
             in energy efficiency and clean production technologies. The goal of the NICE3
             program is to demonstrate the performance and economics of innovative
             technologies in the U.S., leading to the commercialization of improved
             industrial manufacturing processes. These processes should conserve energy,
             reduce waste, and improve industrial cost-competitiveness. Industry applicants
             must submit project proposals through a state energy, pollution prevention, or
             business development office. Awardees receive a one-time, three-year grant of
             up to $400,000, representing up to 50 percent of a project's total cost. In
             addition, up to $25,000 is available to support the state applicant's cost share.
             (Contact: View the website at http//www.oit.doe.gov/Access/nice3; Steve
             Blazek, DOE, (303) 275-4723; or Eric Hass, DOE, (303) 275-4728.)

             ISO 14000
             ISO 14000 is a series of internationally-accepted standards for environmental
             management. The series includes standards for environmental management
             systems (EMS), guidelines on conducting EMS audits, standards for auditor
             qualifications, and standards and guidance for conducting product lifecycle
             analysis.  Standards for auditing and EMS were adopted in September 1996,
             while other elements of the ISO 14000 series are currently in draft form.
             While regulations and levels of environmental control vary from country to
             country,  ISO 14000 attempts to provide a common standard for environmental
             management. The governing body for ISO 14000 is the International
             Organization for Standardization (ISO), a worldwide federation of over 110
             country members based in Geneva, Switzerland.  The American National
             Standards Institute (ANSI) is the United States representative to ISO.
             Information on ISO is available at the following Internet site:
             http://www.iso.ch/welcome.html.
Sector Notebook Project                     148                           September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry
Compliance Assurance Activities and Initiatives
VILE. Summary of Trade Associations
             There are more than 200 trade associations that deal with agricultural issues.
             Many of these are at the national level, while others deal specifically with
             regions of the country or individual states.  The following identify some of the
             major associations addressing agricultural production.
             American Dairy Goat Association
             Ronald E. Gelvin, Secretary
             Treasurer
             P.O. Box 865
             209 W. Main Street
             Spindale, NC28160
             Telephone: 704-286-3801
             Fax: 704-287-0476

             American Dairy Association
             10255 W. Higgins
             Rosemont, IL60018
             Telephone: 847-803-2000
             Fax: 847-803-2077

             Washington, DC office
             600 Maryland Avenue, SW
             Washington, DC 20024
             Telephone: 202-484-3600
             Fax: 202-484-3604

             American Hereford Association
             Craig Huffhines,
             Executive Vice President
             P.O. Box 014059
             Kansas City, MO 64101
             Telephone: 816-842-3757
             Fax: 816-842-6931

             American Horse Council
             James J. Hickey, Jr., President
             1700 K Street, NW, #300
             Washington, DC 20006
             Telephone: 202-296-4031
             Fax: 202-296-1970
      American Equine Association
      Carol Winterburger, Executive
      Director
      Box 658
      Newfoundland, NJ 07435
      Telephone: 973-697-9668
      Fax: 973-697-1538

      American Farm Bureau Federation
      Headquarters office
      225 Touhy Avenue
      Park Ridge, IL 60068
      Telephone: 847-685-8600
      Fax: 847-685-8896

      National Broilers Council
      George B. Watts
      1015 15th Street, NW, Suite 950
      Washington, DC 20005
      Telephone: 202-408-1339

      National Cattlemen's Beef Assoc.
      Charles Schroeder, CEO
      1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,
      Suite 300
      Washington, DC 20004-1701
      Telephone: 202-347-0228
      Fax: 202-638-0607

      National Farmers Organization
      2505 Elwood Drive
      Ames, IA 50010-2000
      Telephone: 515-292-2000
      Fax: 515-292-7106
Sector Notebook Project
   149
September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry
    Compliance Assurance Activities and Initiatives
             American National Cattle Women
             4278 Highway 196
             Lamar, CO 81052
             Telephone: 303-829-4475
             Fax: 303-694-2390

             American Poultry Association
             Lorna Rhodes, Secretary Treasurer
             133 Millville Street
             Mendon, MA 01756
             Telephone and Fax: 508-473-8769

             American Sheep Industry
             Association
             Peter Orwick, Executive Director
             6911 South Yosemite St.
             Englewood, CO 80112-1414
             Telephone: 303-771-3500
             Fax: 303-771-8200

             Association of American Pesticide
             Control Officials
             P.O. Box 1249
             Hardwick, VT 05843
             Telephone: 802-472-6956
             Fax: 802-472-6957

             National Pork Producers Council
             Jerry King, President
             P.O. Box 10383
             Des Moines, IA 50306
             Telephone: 515-223-2600
             Fax: 515-223-2646
          National Farmers Union
          Leland Swenson, President
          11900E. Cornell Avenue
          Aurora, CO 80014-3194
          Telephone: 303-337-5500
          Fax: 303-368-1390

          National Fisheries Institute
          Dick Gutting,
          Executive  Vice President
          1901 N. Fort Myer Drive, Suite 700
          Arlington,  VA 22209
          Telephone: 703-524-8880
          Fax: 703-524-4619

          National Live Stock Producers
          Association
          R. Scott Stuart, CEO
          660 Southpointe Court, Suite 314
          Colorado Springs, CO 80906
          Telephone: 719-538-8843
          Fax: 719-538-8847

          National Turkey Federation
          1225 New York Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: 202-898-0100
          Fax: 202-898-0203
Sector Notebook Project
150
September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry
         Contacts/Resource Materials/Bibliography
VIII. CONTACTS/RESOURCE MATERIALS/BIBLIOGRAPHY

For further information on selected topics within the agricultural livestock production
industry, a list of contacts and publications are provided below:

Contacts2
Name
Ginah Mortensen
Arty Williams
Jean Frane
David Stangel
Joseph Hogue
Robert McNally
Joseph Nevola
Ellen Kramer
Robert A. Forrest
Nancy Fitz
John MacDonald
Kevin Keaney
Al Havinga
Carol Galloway
Organization
EPA, Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance (OECA),
Agriculture Division, Agriculture
Branch
EPA, Office of Prevention, Pesticides
and Toxic Substances (OPPT)
EPA, OPPT
EPA, OECA
EPA, OPPT
EPA, OPPT
EPA, OPPT
EPA, OPPT
EPA, OPPT
EPA, OPPT
EPA, OPPT
EPA, OPPT
EPA, OECA
EPA, OECA
Telephone
913-551-5211
703 305-5239
703 305-5944
202 564-4162
703 308-9072
703 308-8085
703 308-8037
703 305-6475
703 308-9376
703 305-7385
703 305-7370
703 305-5557
202-564-4147
913-551-5008
Subject
Notebook Contact
Ground Water Pesticide
Management Plan Rule
Food Quality Protection Act
Stored or Suspended
Pesticides; Good Laboratory
Practice Standards; Pesticide
Management and Disposal
FIFRA
Restricted Use
Classifications
FIFRA Pesticide Tolerances
FIFRA Pesticide Tolerances
FIFRA Pesticide Tolerances
FIFRA Exemptions
FIFRA Pesticide
Management and Disposal
Certification and Training
FIFRA Worker Protection
Standards
Livestock Issues
Livestock Issues
 Many of the contacts listed above have provided valuable information and comments during the development
of this document. EPA appreciates this support and acknowledges that the individuals listed do not necessarily
endorse all statements made within this notebook.
Sector Notebook Project
151
September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry
         Contacts/Resource Materials/Bibliography
Sharon Buck
Greg Beatty
Roberta Parry
Robin Dunkins
Kurt Roos
Howard Beard
Tracy Back
EPA, OWOW
EPA, OWM
EPA, OPEI
EPA, OAQPS
EPA, OAR
EPA, OGWDW
EPA, CCSMD
202-260-0306
202-260-6929
202-260-2876
919-541-5335
202-564-9041
202-260-8796
202-564-7076
NonPoint Source Issues
NPDES Permniting Issues
Livestock and Crop Issues
Air Issues
Atmospheric Programs
Drinking water Issues
Compliance Assistance
Centers
General Profile
Enforcement Accomplishments Report, FY 1992, U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement
(EPA/23 0-R93-001), April 1993.

Enforcement Accomplishments Report., FY 1993, U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement
(EPA/300-R94-003), April 1994.

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report, FY 1994, U.S. EPA,
Office of Enforcement (EPA/300-R-95-004), May 1995.

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report, FY 1995, U.S. EPA,
Office of Enforcement (EPA/300-R-96-006), July 1996.

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report, FY 1996, U.S. EPA,
Office of Enforcement (EPA-300-R-97-003), May 1997.

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report, FY 1997, U.S. EPA,
Office of Enforcement (EPA-300-R-98-003), 1998.

Occupational Outlook Handbook Home Page, Bureau of Labor Statistics Home Page.
December 1996.

North American Industrial Classification System, Office of Management and Budget.

SIC Code Profile 02, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics, Draft, September 30, 1994.

Small and Part Time Farms, Newsletter, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fall 1996.
Sector Notebook Project
152
September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry	Contacts/Resource Materials/Bibliography


Standard Industrial Classification Manual, Office of Management and Budget, 1987.

U.S. Agriculture Census, 1992 and 1997.

Operations and Pollution Prevention	

Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook, U.S. Department of Agriculture, April
1992 (www.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/awmfh.html).

Animal Agriculture: Information on Waste Management and Water Quality Issues, United
States General Accounting Office (GAO/RCED-95-200BR), June 1995.

Animal Waste Disposal Issues (Audit Report No. E1XWF7-13-0085-7100142), Office of
Inspector General, Report of Audit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, March 31, 1997.

CAFO Standards for Pork Production, Survey, Association of State and Interstate Water
Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA), Washington, D.C., December 1997.

Composting Manure and other Organic Residues, University of Nebraska-Lincoln,
Cooperative Extension, Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources (G97-1315-A)
NebGuide. Electronic version issued January 1998.

Control of Odor Emissions from Animal Operations: A Report from the Board of Governor
of the University of North Carolina, North Carolina State University,  College of Agriculture
and Life Sciences, September, 1998.

Environmental Considerations for Manure Application System Selection, University of
Nebraska-Lincoln,  Cooperative Extension, Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources
(G95-1266-A) NebGuide. Electronic version issued June 1996.

Farm Animal Waste Management Systems: Proper Handling, Storage, and Use, Rutgers
Cooperative Extension, New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station.

Farm-A-Syst, Fact Sheet #9, Reducing the Risk ofGroundwater Contamination by Improving
Silage Storage, University of Wisconsin, Extension/Cooperative Extension, College of
Agricultural and Live Sciences.

Generally Accepted Agricultural and Management Practices for Manure Management and
Utilization (Table 5, Nitrogen losses During Handling and Storage).  Adopted by Michigan
Agriculture Commission, Lansing, Michigan, June 1997.

Greater Harmony Between Agriculture and the Environment, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, 1997.
Sector Notebook Project                    153                           September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry	Contacts/Resource Materials/Bibliography


Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal
Waters, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/MMGI/),
January 1993.

Guidelines for Livestock Producers, Heidi Hutchinson, Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency, November 20, 1997.

The Quality of Our Nation's Water (http://www.epa.gov/305b).

Ohio Livestock Manure and Wastewater Guide, Ohio State University
(http://ohioline.ag.ohio-state.edu/b604/), 1992.

National Unified Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, March 9, 1999.

NRCS Conservation Practice Standards (http://www.ncg.nrcs.usda.gov/practice_stds.html).

NRCS Technical Tools (http://www.ncg.nrcs.usda.gov/tech_tools.html).

Pesticide Applicator Training Manual, Category 1, Agricultural, Subcategory -Animal,
Cornell University, October 1976.

Preliminary Data Summary: Feedlots Point Source Category Study, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC, December 1998.

Region 7's Efforts to Address Water Pollution From Livestock (Audit Report No. E1HWF6-
07-0017-6100312), Office of Inspector General, Report of Audit, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.  September 30, 1996.

Summary: Integrated Animal Waste Management, Council for Agricultural Science and
Technology. The Report of the EPA/State Feedlot Workgroup, Office of Wastewater
Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  September 1993.

Use of Urease Inhibitors to Control Nitrogen Loss From Livestock Waste, U.S. Department
of Agriculture, 1997.

Water Quality and Waste Management, North Carolina Cooperative Extension,
(http://www2.ncsu.edu/bae/programs/extension/publicat/wqwm/index.html).

North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service webpage articles
(http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/programs/extension/publicat/wqwm/animops.html):

       •      Managing a Livestock Operation to Minimize Odors
             Manure Liquid-Solids Separation
       •      Design  Criteria for Swine Waste Flushing Systems
Sector Notebook Project                     154                           September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry	Contacts/Resource Materials/Bibliography


       •      Components of a Complete Manure Management Plan
             Lagoon Design and Management For Livestock Waste Treatment and Storage
       •      Groundwater: Livestock and Water Quality - Manure Management
             Liquid Animal Waste Sampling
       •      Current Litter Practices and Future Needs

Miller, W.P., "Environmental Considerations in Land Application of By-Product Gypsum,"
Agricultural Utilization of Urban and Industrial By-Products, American Society  of
Agronomy, Madison, WI, 1995.

Regulatory Profile	

Ag Environmental Programs (http://es.epa.gov/oeca/ag/aglaws/).

Enforceable State Mechanisms for the Control ofNonpoint Source Water Pollution,
Environmental Law Institute,  1997.

1996 Farm Bill Conservation Provisions
(http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/OPA/FB96OPA/FBillLnk.html).

1996 Farm Bill Summary (http://www.usda.gov/farmbill/titleO.htm).

Guidance Manual On NPDES Regulations For Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations,
Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, December 1995. EPA 833-B-95-
001.

Overview of the Storm Water Program, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, June 1996. EPA 833-R-96-008.

Preliminary Data Summary, Feedlots Point Source Category Study, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, December 31, 1998.
EPA 821-R-99-002.

Major Existing EPA Laws and Programs That Could Affect Producers of Agricultural
Commodities, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Agriculture and Ecosystems Division,
August 8, 1996.

Landfair, Stanley W.  "Toxic  Substances Control Act," Chapter 11 in Environmental Law
Handbook, 12th ed., Government Institutes, Inc., Rockville, MD, 1993.

Miller, Marshall E.  "Federal Regulation of Pesticides," Chapter 13 in Environmental Law
Handbook, 12th ed., Government Institutes, Inc., Rockville, MD, 1993.
Sector Notebook Project                    155                          September 2000

-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry	Contacts/Resource Materials/Bibliography


Other Resources	

AgNIC (http://www.agnic.org/).

Farm*A *Syst (http://www.wisc.edu/farmasyst/index.html).

Manure Master Decision Support Tool (http://www.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/ManureMaster/).

State Partners of the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
(http://www.reeusda.gov/statepartners/usa.htm).
Sector Notebook Project                     156                             September 2000

-------
                                          Charge your order,
                                              It's easy!
                                                                  Fax your orders (202) 512-2250
                                                               Phone your orders (202) 512-1800
                                                          Order online at http://bookstore.gpo.gov
 Order Processing Code: 3212
Tl
ha
Qty







































GPO Stock #

005-000-00512-5
055-000-00513-3
055-000-00518-4
055-000-00515-0
005-000-00516-8
055-000-00517-6
055-000-00519-2
055-000-00520-6
055-000-00521-4
055-000-00522-2
055-000-00523-1
055-000-00524-9
005-000-00525-7
055-000-00526-5
055-000-00527-3
055-000-00528-1
055-000-00529-0
055-000-00514-1

055-000-00570-2
055-000-00576-1
055-000-00571-1
055-000-00573-7
055-000-00574-5
055-000-00575-3
055-000-00577-0
055-000-00578-8
055-000-00572-9

055-000-00579-6
055-000-00619-9

055-000-00620-2

055-000-00635-1
055-000-00636-9
055-000-00633-4
055-000-00634-2
le total cost of my order is 3
Title
Published in 1995
Profile of the Dry Cleaning Industry, 104 pages
Profile of the Electronics and Computer Industry, 160 pages
Profile of the Fabricated Metal Products Industry, 164 pages
Profile of the Inorganic Chemical Industry, 136 pages
Profile of the Iron and Steel Industry, 128 pages
Profile of the Lumber and Wood Products Industry, 136 pages
Profile of the Metal Mining Industry, 148 pages
Profile of the Motor Vehicle Assembly Industry, 156 pages
Profile of the Nonferrous Metals Industry, 140 pages
Profile of the Non-Fuel, Non-Metal Mining Industry, 108 pages
Profile of the Organic Chemical Industry, 152 pages
Profile of the Petroleum Refining Industry, 124 pages
Profile of the Printing Industry, 124 pages
Profile of the Pulp and Paper Industry, 156 pages
Profile of the Rubber and Plastic Industry, 152 pages
Profile of the Stone, Clay, Glass and Concrete Industry, 124 pages
Profile of the Transportation Eguipment Cleaning Industry, 84 pages
Profile of the Wood Furniture and Fixtures Industry, 132 pages
Published in 1997
Profile of the Air Transportation Industry, 90 pages
Profile of the Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Ind., 160 pages
Profile of the Ground Transportation Industry, 130 pages
Profile of the Metal Casting Industry, 150 pages
Profile of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Industry, 147 pages
Profile of the Plastic Resin & Man-made Fiber Industry, 180 pages
Profile of the Shipbuilding and Repair Industry, 120 pages
Profile of the Textile Industry, 130 pages
Profile of the Water Transportation Industry, 90 pages
Published in 1998
Sector Notebook Data Refresh-1997, 210 pages
Profile of the Aerospace Industry, 130 pages
Published in 1999
Profile of Local Government Operations, 310 pages
Published in 2000
Profile of the Agricultural Chemical, Pesticide and Fertilizer Industry, 200 pp.
Profile of the Agricultural Crop Production Industry, 178 pages
Profile of the Agricultural Livestock Production Industry, 159 pages
Profile of the Oil and Gas Extraction Industry,
. Price includes regular shipping and
Price (each)

$6.50
$1 1 .00
$1 1 .00
$9.00
$8.00
$9.00
$10.00
$1 1 .00
$9.00
$6.00
$1 1 .00
$1 1 .00
$7.50
$1 1 .00
$1 1 .00
$7.50
$5.50
$8.00

$7.50
$14.00
$10.00
$13.00
$13.00
$15.00
$9.50
$10.00
$7.50

$17.00
$10.00

$25.00

$18.00
$16.00
$15.00
$16.00
Total








































ndling and is subject to change. International orders add 25 percent.
Company or personal name (please type or print)
Additional address/attention line
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
 Check method of payment:
I  I Check payable to Superintendent of Documents
D GPO Deposit Account
D VISA D MasterCard  D Discover/NOVUS
         Credit Card #
                                                           Expiration date _
                           Thank you for your order!
  Authorizing signature

  Mail to:  Superintendent of Documents
          P.O. Box 371954
          Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954
Daytime phone including area code
**Important: Please include completed order form with payment

-------