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
(£ 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 §402) 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
§122.26. 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 § 307(b)) controls the indirect discharge of pollutants to POTWs by
"industrial users." Facilities regulated under §307(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 § 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. § 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 §302.4.
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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 311 and § 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 § 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 §110 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 §112(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 §3 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 §408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 346a)."
Under FIFRA § 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 § 3(c)(2)(B) and § 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 (§ 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 §17(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 §17(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 §17(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 §5, 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 § 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 § 6 authority are
asbestos, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), lead, and polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs).
Under TSCA § 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 §122.2, 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
§122.26. 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 §319 Nonpoint Source
(NFS) Management Program and 40 CFR §130.6, 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 §323.4). 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 §319) and state coastal zone management programs
(authorized under §306 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 §1429, 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 §1428, 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 §1424
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 §261.4(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
§262.70, 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 §261.7(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 §266.20,
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 §19(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 §19(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 §279.20,
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 §280.12), "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
§280.10, 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
§103(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 §101(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 §§101(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 §§103(c) and (d), certain
facilities must notify EPA of their existence and the owners/operators must
keep records. However, CERCLA §103(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 §107(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 §302, 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 §303, 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).
• §304 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 §31 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.
• §311 and §312 Hazardous Chemical Inventory and Reporting. Under
EPCRA §311 and §312, 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 §311) 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 §312).
Exemption for Substances Used in Agricultural Operations. As
mentioned above, the term "hazardous chemical," as defined in EPCRA
§31 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 §112(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 §10, 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 §12, 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 §3, 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 §6 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 §6 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 §406 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*
"£
^
^«
'—
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 °
il 2
!- M (V
IS
a g 73 a
^ -a 4> *C
a^ [jj 4f*
•a
« 03 »>
8^|
Q) -^ tj
PM 2 •*!
M
«
^
•3 S a
g S o
w
L-
o
a 1
•S S <•>
•s g a a
F i: « o
« fi y '-B
.^ S o ^
a 'a
•3 w
C3
U.
^
J-
fl IK
1 U
|ll
|«|
^
»>
o a
!- .2
^ tj
S c.
z s
X 73
0) 0)
* S"
fefi
»> -=
^3 J
fe .S
=
o
'§"
«
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
°
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,
«S
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!
•«
= aj £
u " .2
o3 ** w
PH ^ ^
1 =
•3 S .2
| g-g
H5a^
H =
1 gl
« § s ,§
3 o «S -<
C3 ^^
fe td
qj x 5- fl
bxi jj oj ,®
S "H I "S
v S w
s «
s V
w m
S-i
Industry S
m
o
0
1
£
S
o
o
o
' '
§
^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
£
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
£
t-~
oo
0
^
' — 1
0
-------
Agricultural Livestock Production Industry
Compliance and Enforcement History
u
•c
•a
a
HH
"S
-^^
o
—
£
<£
t
&
g
B
s
a
o
a
.S
I
0
U
•o
1
B
&
«2
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
^ §
E i
v ^
2 £
'« w
O
2
0 K
S|
5 -3
l>
3
S
o
1
E
z
.a
a
VI
.'-
•§
'«
r?
C
1
s:
1
•a
c
V
'I
=
•^
•K
C
1
A
z
«
"S
V
U
PH
1
a
Z
i
y
=-
H
S
u
I
=
•H
=
3
^i
=
^
o
o
r)
r)
n
e»D
_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
§
<*
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
_£
e
cS
S
B
s
i
g
g
£
a
H
^
=
=
a
%
sS
^H
i
£
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
J°
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
£
CS
'sO
'sO
oo
CS
m
0
oo
e»D
_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
, ,
£
CS
'sO
oo
|| Furniture
£
•*±
oi
^
, i
1
oo
xO
01
ON
"">
g
oo
r-
o
m
^t
o
a
ed
PH
13
f
^0
^f
g
^
CS
£
S?
s^
S->
?f
'sO
1
oo
CS
"*
'sO
t~^
CS
o
CS"
OS)
'£
£
^
^
CS
1?
0?
CS
-^0
S->
X
•*
1
CS
CS
•— '
o
• — 1
o\
CS
||Pharmaceuticals
£
'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
§
m
^f
^
>n
t-~
CS
[[Automobile Assembly
xO
o\
£
0°
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
£%
fa td
•s 3 §
x« o B
11
El
o a.
11
H -53
•S S.
•s 3
x« o 'B
-^^
sS
55
•a
e«
=
u
a
=
O
I
0
o « S
^ ? -B
=
^«
u
i i
H «
"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 §319
Nonpoint Source Management Program in recognition of the need for greater
federal leadership to help focus state and local nonpoint source efforts. Under
§319, 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 §319 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 §314 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 §319 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 §320 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 Star® Buildings and Green Lights® Partnership
In 1991, EPA introduced Green Lights®, 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 Lights® expanded into Energy Star® 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
Star® 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 Star®Buildings
and Green Lights® 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 Star® participants first reduce their energy loads
with the Green Lights® 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
Star® Buildings and Green Lights® 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
------- |