[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 80 (Friday, April 25, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20177-20187]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-10704]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-5817-3]


Final General NPDES Permit for Concentrated Animal Feeding 
Operations (CAFO) in Idaho ID-G-01-0000

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10.

ACTION: Notice of a final general permit.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This general permit regulates CAFO activities in the state of 
Idaho. The permit establishes limitations, standards, prohibitions and 
other conditions for covered facilities. These conditions are based on 
existing national effluent guidelines and material contained in the 
administrative record. A description of the basis for the conditions 
and requirements of the proposed general permit was given in the fact 
sheet and changes to the proposed general permit are documented in the 
Response to Comments.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The general permit will become effective on May 27, 
1997 and will expire on May 27, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information requests may be made to 
Jeanette Carriveau at (206) 553-1214 or to Joe Roberto at (206) 553-
1669. Requests may also be electronically mailed to: 
[email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office of Management and Budget has 
exempted this action from the review requirements of Executive Order 
12866 pursuant to Section 6 of that order.
    Written request for coverage and authorization to discharge under 
the general permit shall be provided to EPA, Region 10, as described in 
Part I.D. of the permit. Authorization to discharge requires written 
notification from EPA that coverage has been granted and that a 
specific permit number has been assigned to the operation.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    After review of the facts presented in the notice printed above, I 
hereby certify pursuant to the provision of 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this 
general NPDES permit will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Moreover, the permit reduces a 
significant administrative burden on regulated sources.

    Dated: April 3, 1997.
Philip G. Millam,
Director, Office of Water, Region 10.

Response to Comments; General NPDES Permit Concentrated Animal 
Feeding Operation

    On August 28, 1995, EPA, Region 10, issued a notice for a proposed 
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit 
(GP) for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) in Idaho (60 FR 
44489, Monday, August 28, 1995). During the public notice period, 
comments were received from Idaho Fish and Game (IDF&G), Idaho 
Department of Health and Welfare Division of Environmental Quality 
(DEQ), Idaho Farm Bureau Federation (IFBF), Army Corps of Engineers, 
Idaho Dairymen's Association (IDA), Idaho Pork Producers Association 
(IPPA), J.R. Simplot Company (Simplot), and Idaho Cattle Association 
(ICA). Public Hearings were held in Boise, Idaho on September 27, 1995, 
and in Twin Falls, Idaho on September 28, 1995. This document directly 
responds to the significant comments pertaining to the GP, made in 
writing and at the Public Hearings.

[[Page 20178]]

    1. Comment: The IDF&G commented that ``The draft permit does not 
mention the possibility of groundwater contamination, which would seem 
a high priority as a result of a CAFO.'' Commenter claims that this, 
especially, would be true considering the number of new dairies in 
certain areas, such as Jerome County. The commenter also claims the 
need to maintain high quality water in the springs along the Snake 
River because of the fish hatcheries and wild fish populations make it 
paramount that the present good quality groundwater be maintained. The 
commenter requests that a discussion on CAFO and groundwater 
contamination should be included in the permit.
    Response: The EPA agrees that groundwater contamination is a 
concern around CAFO facilities. However, the Clean Water Act does not 
give EPA the authority to regulate groundwater quality through NPDES 
permits.
    The only situation in which groundwater may be affected by the 
NPDES program is when a discharge of pollutants to surface waters can 
be proven to be via groundwater. The GP already addresses this 
situation by requiring that lagoons be designed in accordance with Soil 
Conservation Service Technical Note 716.
    2. Comment: Simplot and the ICA request that EPA delete the 
references to groundwater in parts II.C.2. and VII.L. and M. of the 
proposed permit. They claim that the Clean Water Act does not give EPA 
the authority to regulate groundwater through NPDES permits.
    Response: As in the response to comment #1 above, the EPA agrees 
that the Clean Water Act does not give EPA the authority to regulate 
groundwater quality through NPDES permits. However, the permit 
requirements established in parts II.C.2. and VII.L. and M. of the 
proposed permit are not intended to regulate groundwater. Rather, they 
are intended to protect surface waters which are contaminated via a 
groundwater (subsurface) connection.
    As mentioned in the fact sheet to the GP, this determination is 
supported by the following decisions:

--Leslie Salt Co. v. United States, 896 F.2d 354, 358 (9th Cir. 1990) 
(CWA jurisdiction existed over salt flat even though hydrologic 
connection between salt flat and navigable waters was man-made).
--Washington Wilderness Coalition v. Hecla Mining, 870 F. Supp 983 
(E.D. Wash 1994) (Point source discharge of pollutants to surface 
waters of the United States, either directly or through groundwater, is 
subject to regulation by NPDES permit).
--Sierra Club v. Colorado Refining Co., Civ. No. CIV.A.93-K-1713 (D. 
Col. Dec. 8, 1993) (``[The] Clean Water Act's preclusion of the 
discharge of any pollutant into `navigable waters' includes such 
discharge which reaches `navigable waters' through groundwater.'');
--McClellan Ecological Seepage v. Weinberger, 707 F. Supp. 1182, 1194 
(E.D. Cal. 1988) (where hydrologic connection exists between 
groundwater and surface waters, NPDES permit may be required);

    3. Comment: The IDF&G recommends that, in addition to fencing, the 
Best Management Practices portion of the GP be expanded to include such 
things as filter strips, straw bales, etc.
    Response: The purpose of including fencing in the GP is to restrict 
animal access, within the CAFO boundary, to receiving waters, without 
which the ``no discharge'' requirement could not be achieved. While it 
is desirable to include filter strips and straw bales, these may or may 
not be necessary to achieve the ``no discharge'' requirement. However, 
it is the responsibility of the permittee to incorporate whatever best 
management practice is necessary to achieve the ``no discharge'' 
requirement.
    4. Comment: The GP requires that the permittee notify the EPA 
verbally within 24 hours after a discharge. The IDF&G recommends that 
this language be changed so that immediate notification is mandatory.
    Response: EPA agrees that immediate notification is preferred. 
However, this provision is consistent with 40 CFR 122.41(l)(6). 
Therefore, this provision will not be modified.
    5. Comment: The IDF&G comments that concentrated duck feeding 
operations established prior to 1974 are exempt from regulations. The 
commenter claims that this regulation appears to be protecting a 
special interest party or group and should be deleted and that all 
operations should be covered without favoritism toward any one special 
group or operation.
    Response: EPA disagrees with this assessment of the CAFO GP. This 
permit does not exempt the duck feeding operations established prior to 
1974 from meeting regulations. Rather, it states that such operations 
will not be covered under this particular permit. This does not imply 
that they are exempt from regulation.
    As mentioned in section III.C. in the fact sheet, ``EPA's 
regulations do authorize the issuance of ``general permits'' to 
categories of discharges (40 CFR 122.28) when a number of point sources 
are:
    a. Located within the same geographic area and warrant similar 
pollution control measures;
    b. Involve the same or substantially similar types of operations;
    c. Discharge the same types of waste;
    d. Require the same effluent limitations or operating conditions;
    e. Require the same or similar monitoring requirements; and
    f. In the opinion of the Director, are more appropriately 
controlled under a general permit than under individual permits.''
    In other words, this CAFO general permit would not be appropriate 
to cover CAFOs and electroplating operations (for example) because they 
are substantially different operations. The fact that we do not cover 
electroplating operations in this permit does not exempt electroplaters 
from regulation. It just means they are not covered by this particular 
permit and must obtain coverage under another permit.
    The CAFO GP is not applicable for concentrated duck feeding 
operations established prior to 1974 because the requirements 
(established in 40 CFR 412 Subpart B) for such operations are 
substantially different. Unlike the duck feeding operations established 
after 1974, the duck feeding operations established prior to 1974 are 
allowed to have a discharge which must meet certain biochemical oxygen 
demand and fecal coliform levels. This GP is designed for facilities 
which are required to achieve ``no discharge.''
    Again, not covering duck feeding operations established prior to 
1974 under this permit does not exempt them from regulation. They are 
just not covered under this particular permit.
    6. Comment: One of the criteria used in determining whether an 
animal feeding operation is a CAFO is the number of animals confined at 
the facility. The IDF&G expressed concerns regarding this criteria. The 
commenter claims that there are a number of instances when a single 
cattle operator has purposely kept slightly less than 200 mature dairy 
cattle because this number of dairy cows would not be considered a 
CAFO. In very close proximity this same operator keeps another group of 
less than 200 dairy cattle. IDF&G claims that by operating in this 
manner, an operator is able to circumvent the CAFO regulations. As a 
result, the commenter recommends that the number of animals required to 
be considered a CAFO be reduced.
    Response: The regulations (40 CFR 122 Appendix B) specify the 
number of animal units that a facility must confine to be considered a 
CAFO. Therefore, the

[[Page 20179]]

agency cannot arbitrarily select a lower number for use in this permit.
    The EPA agrees that there may be situations, as described by the 
commenter, where a facility may divide its animals into smaller farms 
to circumvent the regulations. The regulations have accounted for this. 
In 40 CFR 122.23(b)(2), it states that ``Two or more animal feeding 
operations under common ownership are considered, for the purposes of 
these regulations, to be a single animal feeding operation if they 
adjoin each other or if they use a common area or system for the 
disposal of wastes.''
    In addition, even though a facility has fewer than the number of 
animals necessary to be considered a CAFO, 40 CFR 122.23(c) allows for 
the designation as a CAFO for any size facility on a case-by-case 
basis. This allows the flexibility to regulate smaller problem 
facilities which are determined to be significant contributors of 
pollutants.
    7. Comment: Part II.A.2. of the draft permit states that control 
facilities must also be designed to contain the 25-year, 24-hour storm 
event. The DEQ inquires as to who will classify actual duration and 
intensity of the rainfall event should enforcement be required.
    Response: Rainfall intensity information for a particular area can 
be obtained from the National Weather Service.
    8. Comment: DEQ commented on the capacity of a waste holding 
facility to contain contaminated water accumulated over the winter. The 
commenter states that it should be noted that some geographical areas 
may require facilities to collect wastewater longer than four months 
which may result in larger holding capacities.
    Response: The purpose of this requirement is to assure that water 
quality is not violated during the winter months. The reason for 
concern is the land application of wastewater onto frozen ground is 
likely to result in runoff into waters of the United States because of 
its low water holding capacity.
    The EPA agrees there are areas in Idaho where the climate is such 
that fields are frozen for longer than four months. If these fields are 
located such that there is a potential for runoff, wastewater should 
not be applied.
    The permit takes these site specific factors into account by 
allowing the use of the one-in-five-year winter precipitation amount 
when calculating the lagoon volume.
    9. Comment: The IFBF recommends that Part V.C. of the draft permit 
(Need to Halt or Reduce Activity not a Defense) be eliminated from the 
permit.
    Response: This provision of the permit is required pursuant to 40 
CFR 122.41(c). Therefore, this request is denied.
    10. Comment: The IFBF and IDA recommend that Part VI.D. of the 
draft permit (Duty to Provide Information) be eliminated from the 
permit. In addition, the IDA claims that this language is too broad.
    Response: This provision of the permit is required pursuant to 40 
CFR 122.41(h). Therefore, this part of the permit will not be modified 
or deleted.
    11. Comment: The IFBF recommends that Part VI.I. of the draft 
permit (Property Rights) be eliminated from the permit.
    Response: This provision of the permit is required pursuant to 40 
CFR 122.41(g). Therefore, this request is denied.
    12. Comment: The IFBF objects to the last sentence in part VII.E. 
of the permit. The commenter claims that giving the director the 
authority to establish other animal unit factors for animal types not 
listed in part VII.E. is lacking the safeguards afforded every other 
group. They recommend a language change to allow for proper 
notification and hearings prior to establishing these animal unit 
factors.
    Response: Based on further review of available information, EPA has 
decided to delete this language. EPA regulations provide that animal 
feeding operations with animal types other than those identified in 40 
CFR 122 Appendix B may be designated a CAFO on a case-by-case basis in 
accordance with 40 CFR 122.23(c).
    13. Comment: The Army Corps of Engineers commented that the draft 
NPDES permit limits wastewater discharges by requiring containment of 
the discharge into constructed sedimentation ponds. The commenter 
states that if these sedimentation ponds or other methods to contain 
the wastewater discharge will involve the discharge of fill material 
into waters of the United States, including wetlands, a Department of 
the Army Permit will be required. The commenter requests that in such 
situations the owner of the concentrated animal feeding operation 
should contact the Department of the Army for permit requirements.
    Response: EPA agrees that if fill material is or will be discharged 
into waters of the United States that the Department of the Army should 
be contacted for information on their permitting requirements.
    14. Comment: The IDA objects to the language in Parts II.A.3.a. and 
b. of the permit. The commenter states that ``The addition of these 
elements into the minimum requirements for wastewater control 
facilities will substantially increase the cost of dairy operations 
without a demonstrated commensurate benefit to water quality 
protection. Additionally, the commenter states that the requirements 
contained in these parts are not found in the CAFO regulations under 40 
CFR 122.23. Consequently, the requirements exceed the legal authority 
of EPA under its own implementing regulations.''
    Response: The EPA agrees that the requirements established in Parts 
II.A.3.a. and b. of the permit are not found in 40 CFR 122.23. However, 
as mentioned in the fact sheet for the GP, these are not the only 
regulations which must be considered when developing NPDES permit 
requirements. These requirements are included in the permit to insure 
that State water quality standards are not exceeded as a result of CAFO 
discharges pursuant to Section 301(b)(1)(C) of the Clean Water Act.
    Section 301(b)(1)(C) of the Clean Water Act states that * * * ``In 
order to carry out the objectives of the Act there shall be achieved 
not later than July 1, 1977, any more stringent limitation, including 
those necessary to meet water quality standards, treatment standards, 
or schedule of compliance, established pursuant to any State law or 
regulations, or any other Federal law or regulation, or required to 
implement any applicable water quality standard established pursuant to 
this Act.'' Note that this section of the Clean Water Act does not 
specify the consideration of economics when establishing limitations 
necessary to achieve water quality standards.
    In addition to the above, the existing permit which was issued in 
1987 incorporated these same requirements. In accordance with 40 CFR 
122.44(l), limitations in reissued permits must be at least as 
stringent as the limitations in the previously issued permit. As a 
result, Parts II.A.3.a. and b. of the permit will not be modified.
    15. Comment: The IDA objects to the language in part II.B.1. of the 
permit which specifies that plans and specifications for control 
facilities shall be submitted to the Idaho Department of Health and 
Welfare Division of Environmental Quality for review and approval prior 
to construction. The commenter claims that the review process of plans 
by DEQ conflicts with the Idaho Dairy Pollution Prevention Initiative 
Memorandum of Understanding which has been agreed to among DEQ, EPA, 
Idaho Department of Agriculture, and the IDA.
    Response: The EPA agrees with this comment, with respect to dairy 
facilities, and will modify the permit to

[[Page 20180]]

reflect the roles and responsibilities established in the Memorandum of 
Understanding.
    16. Comment: The IDA and the IPPA object to the inspection and 
entry language contained in part IV.D. of the permit. The IDA claims 
that this language is too broad and inclusive. The IPPA also states 
that this section of the permit should include more specific standards 
and circumstances for when and how inspections will occur.
    Response: The inspection and entry provisions of the permit are 
consistent with 40 CFR 122.41(i). Therefore, this part of the permit 
will not be modified or deleted.
    17. Comment: The IDA objects to the language in part VI.A. 
(Anticipated Noncompliance) of the permit. The commenter claims that 
this language will require the permittee to give advance notice to the 
Director of any planned changes in the permitted facility or activity 
which may result in noncompliance with permit requirements. The 
commenter also claims this language is far too broad and would require 
a permittee to notify EPA of any possible changes in the dairy 
facilities or daily operations which might, hypothetically, result in 
noncompliance regardless of realistic probability.
    Response: Part VI.A. of the permit is consistent with 40 CFR 
122.41(l)(2). Therefore, this part of the permit will not be modified 
or deleted.
    There appears to be some confusion, however, about what is required 
by this provision. Advance notice does not have to be given to EPA for 
every change at a facility. This language is designed to accommodate 
such conditions as when a dairy increases its herd size to the point 
where the amount of waste generated exceeds the design capacity of the 
waste collection system. However, if the herd size is increased and the 
waste management system is capable of handling the additional waste, it 
is not necessary to report this planned change to EPA.
    18. Comment: The IDA objects to the language in part VI.F.4. of the 
permit which establishes the certification statement that the permittee 
must sign when submitting particular documents. The commenter only 
indicates that the certification statement is unacceptable in its 
present form. The commenter did not explain the rationale behind the 
concern nor was any alternative language presented.
    Response: This certification statement is required pursuant to 40 
CFR 122.22(d). Therefore, this part of the permit will not be modified 
or deleted.
    19. Comment: The IDA objects to the language in Appendix C of the 
permit. The commenter objects to paragraph 5 which reads as follows:

    Name of the receiving water(s) to which wastewaters are (or may 
be) discharged from the facility (receiving waters include canals, 
laterals, rivers, streams, etc.).

    The commenter objects to the portion which identifies canals and 
laterals as receiving waters.
    Response: Canals and laterals which empty into (or connect with) 
waters of the United States such as rivers, streams, lakes, etc. are 
themselves waters of the United States in accordance with the 
definition of waters of the United States in 40 CFR 122.2(e). As a 
result, discharges into canals and laterals are considered point source 
discharges which must be regulated under the NPDES permitting program. 
This position is supported by the following:

--Order of Summary Determination of Liability in the matter of Luis 
Bettencourt, Docket #1093-04-17-309(g),
--Bailey v. U.S. Corps of Engineers, 647 F. Supp 44 at 48 (D. Ida. 
1986),
--U.S. v. Saint Bernard Parish, 589 F. Supp 617 at 620 (E. D. La., 
1984), and
--Town of Buckeye, Arizona, NPDES Opinion #67, November 11, 1977.

    20. Comment: The ICA commented on part I.B. of the permit. The 
commenter claims that ``Runoff from corrals, stockpiled manure . . .'' 
is too broad a statement.
    Response: The intent of this section is only to give examples of 
what constitutes a discharge. Therefore, this part of the permit will 
not be modified.
    Any discharge from corrals or stockpiled manure is considered 
process wastewater. This includes any runoff from these areas caused by 
precipitation, watering system overflows or any other way in which 
contaminated runoff emanates from such areas. If this process 
wastewater makes its way into waters of the United States, this 
constitutes a discharge of process wastewater.
    Note that the requirement in part II.A. of the permit is ``no 
discharge'' of process wastewater to waters of the United States except 
during certain precipitation events.
    21. Comment: The ICA commented on part I.B. of the permit. They 
claim that ``silage piles'' appear to be beyond the scope of law.
    Response: The silage piles in question are those associated with 
CAFO operations. Typically, these piles are located near confinement 
areas. The wastes emanating from these piles may include moisture from 
within the silage pile or runoff resulting from precipitation on the 
pile. Silage wastewater can have extremely high levels of BOD.
    40 CFR 412.11 of the Feedlot Point Source Category defines process 
wastewater as ``. . . any precipitation (rain or snow) which comes into 
contact with any manure, litter or bedding, or any other raw material 
or intermediate or final material or product used in or resulting from 
the production of animals or poultry or direct products (e.g. milk, 
eggs).'' Silage is used in the production of animals. As a result, 
wastewaters from these piles are included as process wastewater from a 
CAFO in accordance with 40 CFR 412.11.
    In addition, 40 CFR 122.1(b)(1) states that ``The NPDES program 
requires permits for the discharge of pollutants from any point source 
into waters of the United States.'' CAFOs are a point source as defined 
in 40 CFR 122.1(b)(2). Any pollutants emanating from a silage pile 
associated with a CAFO is a discharge from a CAFO (or point source) 
which requires an NPDES permit for discharge.
    22. Comment: The ICA commented on part II.C.3. of the permit. This 
provision of the permit prohibits the discharge or drainage of land 
applied wastes from land applied areas to waters of the United States. 
The commenter claims that this provision is a broad assumption of the 
interpretation of the Court ruling in Care vs. Southview Farm which 
spoke to a specific and unique situation which existed in that case.
    Response: EPA will clarify this provision. The intent of this 
provision is to prohibit land application of wastewater which is 
applied at an excessive rate, i.e., in such a manner that it reaches 
waters of the United States. Therefore, the final permit is modified to 
reflect this intent.
    23. Comment: The IPPA objects to section II.B.1. of the permit 
which references the Idaho State Waste Management Guidelines for Animal 
Feeding Operations: and the most recent edition of the Natural Resource 
Conservation Service (NRCS) National Handbook of Conservation Practices 
and associated State Addenda, SCS Technical Note #716. IPPA claims that 
because these documents have not been included as part of the necessary 
rule making process for the General Permit, they may not be used to 
establish legal standards for enforcement of the permit.
    In addition, IPPA objects to EPA's reliance to these documents 
because of the moving target created by them. IPPA states that these 
documents can be modified at any time and that the EPA

[[Page 20181]]

has failed to identify a set point in time or other document 
description to ensure which version of the above documents applies to 
CAFOs.
    Response: The documents referenced above have gone through the 
necessary steps to be included in this permit, including a 60 day 
comment period which was initiated by publication of the permit in the 
Federal Register. However, EPA agrees with the commenter that the 
version of the above documents should be specified in the permit. The 
final permit reflects the current documents.
    24. Comment: The IPPA requests that EPA clarify the intent and 
applicability of part III.B. of the permit (Requiring an Individual 
Permit).
    Response: Part III.B. of the permit is included for informational 
purposes only. A General Permit is a resource saving tool. As mentioned 
in section III.C. of the fact sheet, a General Permit is issued to 
categories of discharges when a number of point sources are:
    a. Located within the same geographic area and warrant similar 
pollution control measures;
    b. Involve the same or substantially similar types of operations;
    c. Discharge the same types of waste;
    d. Require the same effluent limitations or operating conditions;
    e. Require the same or similar monitoring requirements; and
    f. In the opinion of the Director, are more appropriately 
controlled under a general permit than under individual permits.
    The purpose of Part III.B. of the permit is to point out that there 
are situations in which this permit is not appropriate. In such cases, 
the individual permit is an option. This part also identifies the 
procedures that must be followed if an individual permit is determined 
to be more appropriate or if a permittee requests to be covered by an 
individual permit.
    25. Comment: The IPPA requests that within part V. of the permit 
(Compliance Responsibilities) a provision should be added so as to 
allow for good faith compliance and de minimis violations. The 
commenter claims that, as written, compliance is absolute and 
mandatory.
    Response: Compliance Responsibility requirements in part V. of the 
permit are required pursuant to 40 CFR 122. There is no provision in 
this regulation concerning de minimis violations. Therefore, part V. of 
the permit will not be modified.
    The significance of the violation, however, can be taken into 
consideration when determining the appropriate enforcement response by 
the agency.
    26. Comment: IPPA objects to part VI.K. of the permit (State Laws). 
The commenter recognizes the responsibility of complying with both 
state and federal laws. However, the commenter claims that it is unfair 
to subject IPPA members to differing interpretations of the regulations 
from differing agencies. They request that, at a minimum, there should 
be one source where information can be obtained or questions answered.
    Response: The EPA agrees that compliance must be achieved with both 
state and federal laws. However, EPA disagrees that there are differing 
interpretations of the laws and regulations from differing agencies. 
Rather, there are laws and regulations which establish differing roles 
and responsibilities for the state and federal government. For example, 
EPA is responsible for issuing NPDES permits in the state of Idaho. On 
the other hand, the state is responsible for establishing state water 
quality standards. Both of these tasks are required to regulate the 
CAFO industry.
    Although it may be more convenient to establish one contact for 
CAFOs to deal with, the laws and regulations are currently written such 
that both the state and federal government have regulatory 
responsibilities. Therefore, part VI.K. will not be modified.
    27. Comment: The IPPA objects to Appendix B of the permit which 
discusses Significant Contributors of Pollutants (SCP). The commenter 
claims that the SCP provisions are excessively broad such that 
operators are without notice of any legal standard under which this 
section applies. For example, this section simply allows EPA to 
consider ``other relevant factors.'' The commenter states that the 
determination of when to apply this provision cannot be made on an ad 
hoc basis and the EPA must apply the regulations in a uniform non-
discriminatory basis. The commenter further states that this section 
should be rewritten to include specific criteria where an SCP can be 
made and restricted in its application by those criteria.
    Response: The conditions in Appendix B of the permit are 
established pursuant to 40 CFR 122.23(c). Therefore, this part of the 
permit will not be modified.
    28. Comment: Simplot and the ICA request that the language in parts 
I.B. and I.C.8. of the permit which pertains to runoff from land 
applied or irrigated fields and to waste application at agronomic rates 
be deleted. Simplot claims that it is EPA's responsibility to regulate 
point sources of pollution under the Clean Water Act. In addition, 
Simplot claims that the above identified sections of the permit are an 
attempt to regulate nonpoint source discharges and go beyond the 
authority of EPA as provided in the Clean Water Act.
    The ICA stated that these sections are beyond the scope of the 
definition of a CAFO which refers to areas where animals are ``stabled, 
confined, fed or maintained.''
    Response: See response to comment # 22 above. In addition, the 
language pertaining to agronomic rates will not be deleted from the 
permit. Rather, it will be modified to reflect the language suggested 
by to Division of Environmental Quality in the Section 401 Water 
Quality Certification, dated November 25, 1996.
    29. Part I.C.3. of the permit has been modified to accurately 
reflect the requirements in 40 CFR 122.23(b)(1)(ii).
AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE 
ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) FOR CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS 
(CAFO)
General Permit No.: IDG010000
    In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 
U.S.C. 1251 et seq., as amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987, Pub. 
L. 100-4, the ``Act'':
    Owners and operators of CAFOs except those sites excluded from 
coverage in Part I of this NPDES permit, are authorized to discharge in 
accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and 
other provisions set forth herein.
    A COPY OF THIS GENERAL PERMIT MUST BE KEPT AT THE SITE OF THE CAFO 
AT ALL TIMES.
    This permit will become effective May 27, 1997.
    This permit and the authorization to discharge under the National 
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System shall expire on May 27, 2002.

    Signed this 3rd day of April 1997.
Philip G. Millam,
Director, Office of Water.

Table of Contents

I. Permit Coverage
    A. Who needs to be covered by this permit?
    B. What constitutes a discharge?
    C. How to determine if your animal feeding operation is a CAFO?
    D. Permit Coverage
    E. Permit Expiration
II. Permit Requirements
    A. Discharge Limitations
    B. Best Management Practice (BMP)
    1. Design of Control Facilities
    2. Facility Expansion
    3. Chemical Handling

[[Page 20182]]

    4. Access Restriction
    5. Land Application
    6. Emergency Operation and Maintenance
    C. Prohibitions
    D. Discharge Monitoring and Notification
III. Limitations of the General Permit
    A. Limitations on Coverage
    B. Requiring an Individual Permit
IV. Monitoring, Reporting and Recording Requirements
    A. When to Report?
    B. What to report?
    C. Other Noncompliance Reporting
    D. Inspection and Entry
V. Compliance Responsibilities
    A. Duty to Comply.
    B. Penalties for Violations of Permit Conditions.
    1. Administrative Penalty
    2. Civil Penalty
    3. Criminal Penalties
    a. Negligent Violations
    b. Knowing Violations
    c. Knowing Endangerment
    d. False Statements
    C. Need to Halt or Reduce Activity not a Defense
    D. Duty to Mitigate
    E. Proper Operation and Maintenance
    F. Removed Substances
    G. Toxic Pollutants
VI. General Requirements
    A. Anticipated Noncompliance
    B. Permit Actions
    C. Duty to Reapply
    D. Duty to Provide Information
    E. Other Information
    F. Signatory Requirements
    G. Availability of Reports
    H. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability
    I. Property Rights
    J. Severability
    K. State Laws
    L. Paperwork Reduction Act
VII. Definitions

I. Permit Coverage

A. Who Needs to be Covered by this Permit?

    A permit is required for discharges of process wastewater from all 
operations classified as a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation 
(CAFO).

B. What Constitutes a Discharge?

    This permit does not allow the discharge of process wastewater 
except in accordance with Part II.A. of this permit.
    A discharge of process wastewater is the release of pollutants from 
a CAFO which enters surface waters such as a river, stream, creek, 
lake, or other waters of the United States. Process wastewaters 
include, but are not limited to, the following:

--Runoff from corrals, stock piled manure, and silage piles;
--Overflow from storage ponds; and
--Runoff from irrigated fields in which wastewater is applied at 
excessive rates which allow runoff of applied wastewater to enter 
waters of the United States.

C. How to Determine if Your Animal Feeding Operation is a CAFO?

    Review the following questions to determine if your facility is a 
CAFO.
    1. Do you operate a facility where animals are confined and fed or 
maintained?
    If yes, proceed to next question. If no, your facility is not a 
CAFO.
    2. Are animals confined and fed or maintained for a total of 45 
days or more in any 12 month period?
    If yes, proceed to next question. If no, your facility is not a 
CAFO.
    3. Are any crops, vegetation forage growth, or post-harvest 
residues sustained in the normal growing season over any portion of the 
lot or facility?
    If no, proceed to next question. If yes, your facility is not a 
CAFO.
    4. Does your facility confine greater than the following number of 
animals:

--700 mature dairy cattle,
--1000 slaughter or feeder cattle, or
--1000 animal units (See Appendix A for details)?

    If yes, your facility is a CAFO. If no, proceed to next question.
    5. Does your facility confine the following number of animals:

--between 200 and 700 mature dairy cattle,
--between 300 and 1000 slaughter or feeder cattle, or
--between 300 and 1000 animal units (See Appendix A for details)?

    If yes, proceed to question 7. If no, proceed to next question.
    6. For facilities with less than the animals established in 
Question 5. above, have you been notified by EPA, after an inspection, 
that your facility has been designated a CAFO? See Appendix B for 
details on significant contributors of pollution.
    If yes, your facility is a CAFO.
    7. Does your facility discharge directly into rivers, streams, 
creeks or other waters of the United States?
    If yes, your facility is a CAFO. If no, proceed to next question.
    8. Does your facility discharge through a man-made device such as a 
pipe, ditch, or field overflow from land application, into a river, 
stream, creek or other waters of the United States?
    If yes, your facility is a CAFO. If no, your facility is not a 
CAFO.
    9. Have you been otherwise notified by EPA that your facility is a 
CAFO? If yes, your facility is a CAFO. (The Regulations state that 
``the Director may designate any animal feeding operation as a CAFO 
upon determining that it is a significant contributor of pollution to 
the waters of the United States.'')
    If you answered YES to questions 4, 6, 7, 8 or 9 above, your 
facility is a CAFO.
    See Part VII. of this permit for more details on the definition of 
a CAFO.

D. Permit Coverage

    1. Owners or operators of CAFOs must submit an application (also 
known as a Notice of Intent) to the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) to obtain coverage under this permit. A list of information 
required for a complete application can be found in Appendix C of this 
permit.
    2. The application shall be signed by the owner or other authorized 
person in accordance with Part VI.F. of this permit.
    3. The application must be submitted to EPA at least 90 days prior 
to discharge. Coverage under this permit requires written notification 
from EPA that coverage has been granted and that a specific permit 
number has been assigned to the CAFO.
    4. Signed copies of the application shall be sent to: U.S. EPA 
Region 10, OW-133 CAFO NOI, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 
98101.
    5. CAFOs in Idaho must also send a copy of the application to: 
Idaho State Division of Environmental Quality, 1410 N. Hilton, Boise, 
Idaho 83706-1255.

E. Permit Expiration

    Coverage under this permit will expire five (5) years from the date 
of issuance.

II. Permit Requirements

A. Discharge Limitations

    There shall be no discharge of process wastewater to waters of the 
United States except when precipitation events cause an overflow of 
process wastewater from a control facility properly designed, 
constructed, maintained, and operated to contain:
    1. All process generated wastewater resulting from the operation of 
the CAFO (such as wash water, parlor water, watering system overflow, 
etc.); plus,
    2. All the contaminated runoff from a 25-year, 24-hour rainfall 
event; plus,
    3. a. Three inches of runoff from the accumulation of winter 
precipitation; or
    b. The amount of runoff from the accumulation of precipitation from 
a one in five year winter.

B. Best Management Practice (BMP)

    At a minimum, the management practices established in the Idaho 
State Waste Management Guidelines for Animal Feeding Operations and the 
BMPs listed below shall be

[[Page 20183]]

implemented to prevent contamination of waters of the United States:
1. Design of Control Facilities
    All control facilities constructed after the issuance date of this 
permit or any existing control facility which is redesigned and 
modified in any way after the issuance of this permit shall be 
designed, constructed and maintained in accordance with the Idaho State 
Waste Management Guidelines for Animal Feeding Operations, 1993 and the 
Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) National Handbook of 
Conservation Practices and associated State Addenda, SCS Technical Note 
#716, September 1993. Plans and specifications for control facilities 
(except those at dairy operations) shall be submitted to the Idaho 
Department of Health and Welfare Division of Environmental Quality 
(IDHW-DEQ) for review and approval prior to construction. Plans and 
specifications for control facilities at dairy operations shall be 
submitted to the Idaho Department of Agriculture for review and 
approval prior to construction.
2. Facility Expansion
    CAFO operations shall not be expanded, either in size or numbers of 
animals, unless the waste handling procedures and structures are 
adequate to accommodate any additional wastes that will be generated by 
the expanded operations. Such expansion shall be consistent with the 
Idaho State Waste Management Guidelines for Animal Feeding Operations, 
1993.
3. Chemical Handling
    All wastes from dipping vats, pest and parasite control units, and 
other facilities utilized for the application of potentially hazardous 
or toxic chemicals shall be handled and disposed of in a manner such as 
to prevent any pollutants from entering the waters of the United 
States.
4. Access Restriction
    No flowing surface waters (e.g. rivers, streams, or other waters of 
the United States) shall come into direct contact with the animals 
confined on the CAFO. Fences may be used to restrict such access.
5. Land Application
    In order to ensure protection of groundwater from nutrient 
contamination, the land application rates, of both process wastewater 
and manure, will be applied at recommended agronomic rates for the 
crop(s) grown on the land application site(s).
6. Emergency Operation and Maintenance
    It shall be considered ``Proper Operation and Maintenance'' for a 
control facility which has been properly maintained and is otherwise in 
compliance with the permit, and that is in danger of imminent overflow 
due to chronic or catastrophic rainfall, to discharge process 
wastewaters to land application sites for filtering. The volume 
discharged during such an event shall be limited to that amount 
reasonably expected to overflow from the waste storage pond. Such 
discharges shall be reported to EPA in accordance with Part IV of the 
permit.

C. Prohibitions

    1. The discharge of any materials or substance other than process 
wastewater is strictly prohibited by this permit.
    2. Discharges of process wastewaters to waters of the United States 
by means of a hydrologic connection is prohibited.
    3. The discharge or drainage of land applied wastes (solid or 
liquid) from land applied areas to waters of the United States is 
prohibited. This includes discharges of land applied wastes from land 
applied areas, regardless of whether such discharges occur on rainy 
days, where rain is not the sole cause of the discharge.

D. Discharge Monitoring and Notification

    If, for any reason, there is a discharge to a water of the United 
States, the permittee is required to monitor and report as established 
in Part IV. of this permit.
    Discharge flow and volume from a CAFO may be estimated if 
measurement is impracticable.

III. Limitations of the General Permit

A. Limitations on Coverage

    The following CAFOs are not covered by this permit:
    1. CAFOs which have been notified by the Director to file for an 
individual permit in accordance with Part III.B. of this permit.
    2. CAFOs that discharge all process wastewater to a publicly owned 
sanitary sewer system which operates in accordance with an NPDES 
permit.
    3. Concentrated Duck feeding operations established prior to 1974.

B. Requiring an Individual Permit

    1. The Director may require any person authorized by this permit to 
apply for and obtain an individual NPDES permit. The Director will 
notify the owner or operator in writing that an individual permit 
application is required. If an owner or operator fails to submit the 
permit application by the date specified in the Director's written 
notification, then coverage by this general permit is automatically 
terminated.
    2. Any owner or operator covered by this permit may request to be 
excluded from the permit coverage by applying for an individual permit. 
The owner or operator shall submit an individual application (Form 1 
and Form 2B) to the Director with reasons supporting the request.
    3. When an individual NPDES permit is issued to an owner or 
operator otherwise covered by this permit, coverage by this permit is 
automatically terminated on the effective date of the individual 
permit.
    4. When an individual NPDES permit is denied to an owner or 
operator otherwise covered by this permit, coverage by this permit is 
automatically reinstated on the date of such denial, unless otherwise 
specified by the Director.

IV. Monitoring, Reporting and Recording Requirements

A. When to Report?

    If, for any reason, there is a discharge to a water of the United 
States, the permittee is required to:
    1. Verbally notify the EPA of the discharge at (206) 553-1846 
within 24 hours, and
    2. Notify the EPA and the State of the discharge in writing within 
5 days of the discharge. Written notification shall be sent to the 
addresses identified in Part I.D. of this permit.

B. What to Report?

    The information required for notification shall include:
    1. A description and cause of the discharge, including a 
description of the flow path to the receiving water body. Also, an 
estimation of the duration of the flow and volume discharged.
    2. The dates and times of the discharge, and, if not corrected, the 
anticipated time the discharge is expected to continue, as well as 
procedures implemented to prevent the recurrence of the discharge.
    3. If caused by a precipitation event(s), information from the 
National Weather Service concerning the size of the precipitation 
event.
    4. If any samples are collected and analyzed the written report 
shall also include the following:
    a. The date, exact place, and time of sampling or measurements;
    b. The individual(s) who performed the sampling or measurements;

[[Page 20184]]

    c. The date(s) analyses were performed;
    d. The analytical techniques or methods used; and
    e. The results of such analyses.
    5. The Director may waive the written report on a case-by-case 
basis if an oral report has been received within 24 hours by the Water 
Compliance Section in Seattle, Washington, by phone, (206) 553-1669.
    6. Any reports submitted to EPA must be signed by the owner or 
authorized person in accordance with Part VI.F. of the permit.

C. Other Noncompliance Reporting

    Instances of noncompliance not required to be reported in Part 
IV.A. of this permit shall be reported in writing within 5 days after 
the permittee becomes aware of the violation. The reports shall contain 
the information listed in Part IV.B. of this permit.

D. Inspection and Entry

    The permittee shall allow the Director, or an authorized 
representative (including an authorized contractor acting as a 
representative of the Administrator), upon the presentation of 
credentials and other documents as may be required by law, to:
    1. Enter upon the permittee's premises where a regulated facility 
or activity is located or conducted, or where records must be kept 
under the conditions of this permit;
    2. Have access to and copy, at reasonable times, any records that 
must be kept under the conditions of this permit;
    3. Inspect at reasonable times any facilities, equipment (including 
monitoring and control equipment), practices, or operations regulated 
or required under this permit; and
    4. Sample or monitor at reasonable times, for the purpose of 
assuring permit compliance or as otherwise authorized by the Act, any 
substances or parameters at any location.

V. Compliance Responsibilities

A. Duty To Comply

    The permittee must comply with all conditions of this permit. Any 
permit noncompliance constitutes a violation of the Act and is grounds 
for enforcement action; for permit termination, revocation and 
reissuance, or modification; or for denial of a permit renewal 
application.

B. Penalties for Violations of Permit Conditions

1. Administrative Penalty
    The Act provides that any person who violates a permit condition 
implementing Sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of the Act 
shall be subject to an administrative penalty, not to exceed $10,000 
per day for each violation.
2. Civil Penalty
    The Act provides that any person who violates a permit condition 
implementing Sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of the Act 
shall be subject to a civil penalty, not to exceed $25,000 per day for 
each violation.
3. Criminal Penalties
    a. Negligent Violations. The Act provides that any person who 
negligently violates a permit condition implementing Sections 301, 302, 
306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of the Act shall be punished by a fine of 
not less than $2,500 nor more than $25,000 per day of violation, or by 
imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or by both.
    b. Knowing Violations. The Act provides that any person who 
knowingly violates a permit condition implementing Sections 301, 302, 
306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of the Act shall be punished by a fine of 
not less than $5,000 nor more than $50,000 per day of violation, or by 
imprisonment for not more than 3 years, or by both.
    c. Knowing Endangerment. The Act provides that any person who 
knowingly violates a permit condition implementing Sections 301, 302, 
306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of the Act, and who knows at that time that 
he thereby places another person in imminent danger of death or serious 
bodily injury, shall, upon conviction, be subject to a fine of not more 
than $250,000 or imprisonment of not more than 15 years, or both. A 
person which is an organization shall, upon conviction of violating 
this subparagraph, be subject to a fine of not more than $1,000,000.
    d. False Statements. The Act provides that any person who knowingly 
makes any false material statement, representation, or certification in 
any application, record, report, plan, or other document filed or 
required to be maintained under this Act or who knowingly falsifies, 
tampers with, or renders inaccurate any monitoring device or method 
required to be maintained under this Act, shall upon conviction, be 
punished by a fine of not more that $10,000, or by imprisonment for not 
more than 2 years, or by both.
    Nothing in this permit shall be construed to relieve the permittee 
of the civil or criminal penalties for noncompliance.

C. Need To Halt or Reduce Activity Not a Defense

    It shall not be a defense for a permittee in an enforcement action 
that it would have been necessary to halt or reduce the permitted 
activity in order to maintain compliance with the conditions of this 
permit.

D. Duty to Mitigate

    The permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize or 
prevent any discharge in violation of this permit which has a 
reasonable likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the 
environment.

E. Proper Operation and Maintenance

    The permittee shall at all times properly operate and maintain all 
facilities and systems of treatment and control (and related 
appurtenances) which are installed or used by the permittee to achieve 
compliance with the conditions of this permit.

F. Removed Substances

    Solids, sludges, or other pollutants removed in the course of 
treatment or control of wastewaters shall be disposed of in a manner so 
as to prevent any pollutant from such materials from entering waters of 
the United States.

G. Toxic Pollutants

    The permittee shall comply with effluent standards or prohibitions 
established under Section 307(a) of the Act for toxic pollutants within 
the time provided in the regulations that establish those standards or 
prohibitions, even if the permit has not yet been modified to 
incorporate the requirement.

VI. General Requirements

A. Anticipated Noncompliance

    The permittee shall also give advance notice to the Director of any 
planned changes in the permitted facility or activity which may result 
in noncompliance with permit requirements.

B. Permit Actions

    This permit may be modified, revoked and reissued, or terminated 
for cause. The filing of a request by the permittee for a permit 
modification, revocation and reissuance, or termination, or a 
notification of planned changes or anticipated noncompliance, does not 
stay any permit condition.

C. Duty To Reapply

    If the permittee wishes to continue an activity regulated by this 
permit after the expiration date of this permit, the

[[Page 20185]]

permittee must apply for a new permit by resubmitting the information 
in Appendix C of this permit. The application should be submitted at 
least 180 days before the expiration date of this permit.

D. Duty To Provide Information

    The permittee shall furnish to the Director, within a reasonable 
time, any information which the Director may request to determine 
whether cause exists for modifying, revoking and reissuing, or 
terminating this permit, or to determine compliance with this permit. 
The permittee shall also furnish to the Director, upon request, copies 
of records required to be kept by this permit.

E. Other Information

    When the permittee becomes aware that it failed to submit any 
relevant facts in a permit application, or submitted incorrect 
information in a permit application or any report to the Director, it 
shall promptly submit such facts or information.

F. Signatory Requirements

    All applications, reports or information submitted to the Director 
shall be signed and certified.
    1. All permit applications shall be signed as follows:
    a. For a corporation: by a responsible corporate officer.
    b. For a partnership or sole proprietorship: by a general partner 
or the proprietor, respectively.
    c. For a municipality, state, federal, or other public agency by 
either a principal executive officer or ranking elected official.
    2. All reports required by the permit and other information 
requested by the Director shall be signed by a person described above 
or by a duly authorized representative of that person. A person is a 
duly authorized representative only if:
    a. The authorization is made in writing by a person described above 
and submitted to the Director, and
    b. The authorization specified either an individual or a position 
having responsibility for the overall operation of the regulated 
facility or activity, such as the position of plant manager, operator 
of a well or a well field, superintendent, position of equivalent 
responsibility, or an individual or position having overall 
responsibility for environmental matters for the company. (A duly 
authorized representative may thus be either a named individual or any 
individual occupying a named position.)
    3. Changes to authorization. If an authorization under paragraph 
VI.F.2. is no longer accurate because a different individual or 
position has responsibility for the overall operation of the facility, 
a new authorization satisfying the requirements of paragraph VI.F.2. 
must be submitted to the Director prior to or together with any 
reports, information, or applications to be signed by an authorized 
representative.
    4. Certification. Any person signing a document under this section 
shall make the following certification:
    ``I certify under penalty of law that this document and all 
attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in 
accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel 
properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my 
inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those 
persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the 
information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, 
accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties 
for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and 
imprisonment for knowing violations.''

G. Availability of Reports

    Except for data determined to be confidential under 40 CFR Part 2, 
all reports prepared in accordance with the terms of this permit shall 
be available for public inspection at the office of the Director. As 
required by the Act, permit applications, permits and effluent data 
shall not be considered confidential.

H. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability

    Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the 
institution of any legal action or relieve the permittee from any 
responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties to which the permittee is 
or may be subject under Section 311 of the Act.

I. Property Rights

    The issuance of this permit does not convey any property rights of 
any sort, or any exclusive privileges, nor does it authorize any injury 
to private property or any invasion of personal rights, nor any 
infringement of federal, state or local laws or regulations.

J. Severability

    The provisions of this permit are severable, and if any provision 
of this permit, or the application of any provision of this permit to 
any circumstance, is held invalid, the application of such provision to 
other circumstances, and the remainder of this permit, shall not be 
affected thereby.

K. State Laws

    Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the 
institution of any legal action or relieve the permittee from any 
responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties established pursuant to any 
applicable state law or regulation under authority preserved by Section 
510 of the Act.

L. Paperwork Reduction Act

    EPA has reviewed the requirements imposed on regulated facilities 
in this draft general permit under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information collection requirements of this 
permit have already been approved by the Office of Management and 
Budget in submission made for the NPDES permit program under the 
provisions of the CWA.

VII. Definitions

    A. 25-Year, 24-Hour Rainfall Event means the maximum 24-hour 
precipitation event with a probable recurrence interval 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.
    B. Administrator means the Administrator of the United States 
Environmental Protection Agency, or an authorized representative.
    C. Animal feeding operation means a lot or facility (other than an 
aquatic animal production 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 the animal confinement areas 
do not sustain crops, vegetation, forage growth, or post-harvest 
residues in the normal growing season. Two or more animal feeding 
operations under common ownership are a single animal feeding operation 
if they adjoin each other, or if they use a common area or system for 
the disposal of wastes.
    D. Animal unit means a unit of measurement for any animal feeding 
operation calculated by adding the following numbers: The number of 
slaughter and feeder cattle and dairy heifers multiplied by 1.0, plus 
the number of mature dairy cattle multiplied by 1.4, plus the number of 
swine weighing over 55 pounds multiplied by 0.4, plus the number of

[[Page 20186]]

sheep multiplied by 0.1, plus the number of horses multiplied by 2.0.
    E. Application means a written ``notice of intent'' pursuant to 40 
CFR 122.28.
    F. Best Management Practices (BMPs) means schedules of activities, 
prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, and other management 
practices to prevent or reduce the pollution of ``waters of the United 
States''. BMPs also include treatment requirements, operating 
procedures, and practices to control site runoff, spillage or leaks, 
sludge or waste disposal, or drainage from raw material storage.
    G. Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) means an ``animal 
feeding operation'' which meets the criteria in 40 CFR Part 122, 
Appendix B, or which the Director designates as a significant 
contributor of pollution pursuant to 40 CFR 122.23 (c). Animal feeding 
operations defined as ``concentrated'' in 40 CFR 122 Appendix B are as 
follows:
    1. New and existing operations which stable or confine and feed or 
maintain for a total of 45 days or more in any 12-month period more 
than the numbers of animals specified in any of the following 
categories:
    a. 1,000 slaughter or feeder cattle;
    b. 700 mature dairy cattle (whether milkers or dry cows);
    c. 2,500 swine weighing over 55 pounds each;
    d. 500 horses;
    e. 10,000 sheep or lambs;
    f. 55,000 turkeys;
    g. 100,000 laying hens or broilers when the facility has unlimited 
continuous low watering systems;
    h. 30,000 laying hens or broilers when facility has liquid manure 
handling system;
    i. 5,000 ducks; or
    j. 1,000 animal units.
    2. New and existing operations which discharge pollutants into 
waters of the United States either through a man-made ditch, flushing 
system, or other similar man-made device, or directly into waters of 
the United States, and which stable or confine and feed or maintain for 
a total of 45 days or more in any 12-month period more than the numbers 
or types of animals in the following categories:
    a. 300 slaughter or feeder cattle;
    b. 200 mature dairy cattle (whether milkers or dry cows);
    c. 750 swine weighing over 55 pounds;
    d. 150 horses;
    e. 3000 sheep or lambs;
    f. 16,000 turkeys;
    g. 30,000 laying hens or broilers when the facility has unlimited 
continuous flow watering systems;
    h. 9000 laying hens or broilers when facility has a liquid manure 
handling system;
    i. 1,500 ducks; or
    j. 300 animal units (from a combination of slaughter steers and 
heifers, mature dairy cattle, swine over 55 pounds and sheep).
    Provided, however, that no animal feeding operation is a CAFO as 
defined above if such animal feeding operation discharges only in the 
event of a 25-year, 24-hour storm event.
    H. Control Facility means any system used for the retention of all 
wastes on the premises until their ultimate disposal. This includes the 
retention of manure, liquid waste, and runoff from the feedlot area.
    I. Director means the Regional Administrator of EPA.
    J. Feedlot means a concentrated, confined animal or poultry growing 
operation for meat, milk, or egg production, or stabling, in pens or 
houses wherein the animals or poultry are fed at the place of 
confinement and crop or forage growth or production is not sustained in 
the area of confinement.
    K. Ground Water means any subsurface waters.
    L. Hydrologic Connection means the flow between surface 
impoundments and surface water by means of a subsurface conveyance.
    M. Land Application means the removal of wastewater and waste 
solids from a control facility and distribution to, or incorporation 
into the soil.
    N. Process Wastewater means any process generated wastewater 
directly or indirectly used in the operation of a feedlot (such as 
spillage or overflow from animal or poultry watering systems; washing, 
cleaning, or flushing pens, barns, manure pits, direct contact 
swimming, washing, or spray cooling of animals; and dust control) and 
any precipitation which comes into contact with any manure or litter, 
bedding, or any other raw material or intermediate or final material or 
product used in or resulting from the production of animals or poultry 
or direct products (e.g., milk, eggs).
    O. Severe Property Damage means substantial physical damage to 
property, damage to the treatment facilities which causes them to 
become inoperable, or substantial and permanent loss of natural 
resources which can reasonable be expected to occur in the absence of a 
bypass. Severe property damage does not mean economic loss caused by 
delays in production.
    P. The Act means Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended, 
also known as the Clean Water Act, found at 33 USC 1251 et seq.
    Q. Toxic Pollutants means any pollutant listed as toxic under 
section 307(a)(1) of the Act.
    R. Waters of the United States. See 40 CFR 122.2.

Appendix A--Animal Units Calculations

    ``Animal unit'' is a term defined by the regulations and varies 
according to animal type; one animal is not always equal to one 
animal unit. Conversion to animal units is a procedure used to 
determine pollution equivalents among the different animal types; 
dairy cows produce more waste than sheep. This calculation is used 
on facilities with more than one animal type onsite.
    The number of animal units is calculated as follows:

--number of slaughter and feeder cattle multiplied by 1.0, plus,
--number of mature dairy cattle multiplied by 1.4, plus,
--number of dairy heifers cattle multiplied by 1.0, plus,
--number of swine weighing over 55 pounds multiplied by 0.4, plus,
--number of sheep multiplied by 0.1, plus,
--number of horses multiplied by 2.0.

    Example 1: Determine the number of animal units on a dairy 
operation which maintains 650 mature dairy cows and 300 dairy 
heifers.

[(# mature cows)(1.4)+(# heifers)(1.0)]=animal units
[(650 x 1.4)+(300 x 1.0)]=1210 animal units.

    Such a facility exceeds the 1000 animal units as established in 
Part I.C.4. of this permit, thus this facility is a CAFO and is 
subject to NPDES requirements.
    Example 2: Determine the number of animal units on a feeding 
operation which maintains 650 slaughter cattle, 100 horses, and 1000 
sheep.

[(650 x 1.0)+(100 x 2)+(1000 x 0.1)]=950 animal units. This facility 
does not exceed the 1000 animal units required to be a CAFO in Part 
I.C.4. of this permit. However, it can be classified as a CAFO under 
Part I.C.5. of this permit if pollutants are discharged through a 
man-made conveyance or if pollutants are discharged directly to 
waters of the U.S. If this situation occurs, discharges are subject 
to NPDES requirements.

Appendix B--Significant Contributor of Pollutants

    Definition:
    ``Significant Contributor of Pollutants'' (SCP) is a designation 
of an animal feeding operation made by the Director on a case-by-
case basis. The purpose of this designation is to regulate animal 
feeding operations that are not automatically classified as CAFOs in 
Part I.C. of the permit and have the potential of causing 
environmental harm.
    Designation Procedure:

--SCP determinations can only be conducted after an onsite 
inspection.
--The following factors are considered when making an SCP 
determination:

    a. The size of the animal feeding operation and the amount of 
wastes reaching waters of the United States,

[[Page 20187]]

    b. The location of the animal feeding operation relative to 
waters of the United States,
    c. The means of conveyance of animal wastes and process 
wastewater to waters of the United States,
    d. The slope, vegetation, rainfall, and other factors affecting 
the likelihood or frequency of discharge of animal wastes and 
process wastewater into waters of the United States, and
    e. Other relevant factors.

--An animal feeding operation is a CAFO upon notification by the 
Director.

Appendix C--Notice of Intent (Application) Information Requirements

    The Application to be covered by this permit shall include the 
following:
    1. Previous NPDES permit number if applicable,
    2. Facility owner's name, address and telephone number,
    3. Facility operator's name, address and telephone number,
    4. Types of waste handling practices currently used for 
processing wastes (such as containment in a waste storage pond plus 
land application),
    5. Name of receiving water(s) to which wastewaters are (or may 
be) discharged from the facility (receiving waters include canals, 
latterals, rivers, streams, etc.),
    6. The type and number of animals confined, and
    7. A sketch of the operation, including control facilities, 
diversion ditches, building structures, feeding areas, slope, 
direction of overland and surface water flow, and proximity to 
surface waters.

[FR Doc. 97-10704 Filed 4-24-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P