ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-4552-8]

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit 
and Reporting Requirements for Discharges From Concentrated 
Animal Feeding Operations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Region 6 public notice of the final permitting decision. 
General NPDES permits for discharges from confined animal feeding 
operations.

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
SUMMARY: Pursuant to sections 301, 304 (b) and (c), and 306 
(b) and (c) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) 40 CFR 122.23 defines 
concentrated animal feeding operations as point sources subject 
to the NPDES permit program. 40 CFR part 122, appendix B lists 
the criteria for determining a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation 
(CAFOs) (122.23). 40 CFR part 412 establishes the effluent 
limitation guidelines for Feedlots pursuant to sections 306 
(b) and (c) of the Clean Water Act.

   This is to give notice that the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region 6, has made a final permitting decision and will 
issue the following Permits under the National Pollutant Discharge 
Elimination System. The permits will become effective 30 days 
after the date of this Public Notice. Any substantial changes 
from the Draft Permit are cited.
   This notice of the issuance of separate general permits for 
concentrated animal feeding operations in four States (Louisiana, 
New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas) without authorized NPDES State 
programs; on Indian lands in New Mexico and Oklahoma. Separate 
general permits are being noticed for each State.

DATES: The permit will become effective on March 10, 1993.

ADDRESSES: The issuance is based on a final staff review of 
the administrative record and comments received. A Response 
to Comments is available by writing to: Ellen Caldwell, Permits 
Branch of Water Division (6W-PS), U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Ave., suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 
75202 (214) 655-7190. The public record is located at EPA Region 
6, and is available upon written request. Requests for copies 
of the public record should be addressed to Ellen Caldwell at 
the address above. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying. 
Further information including the administrative record may 
be viewed at the above address between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., 
Monday through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Caldwell, (214) 655-7190.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Contents of this Preamble

Part I. Changes to the Draft Permit.
Part II. Responsiveness Summary
Part III. Economic Impact
Part IV. Effect of Additional Federal Regulations

  A. National Environmental Policy Act

  B. Executive Order 12291

  C. Paperwork Reduction Act

  D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Region 6, Public Notice 
of the Final Permitting Decision.

Part I. Changes to the Draft Permit 

   Based on information received during the public comment period 
the Agency had made minor changes to the conditions in the draft 
permit. The following are changes which were made to the draft 
permit which was proposed July 22, 1992 (57 FR 32475): 
   1. Under Part I, Section B.1. Existing Facilities and Section 
D., owners or operators of concentrated animal feeding operations 
(CAFO), as defined in 40 CFR part 122 appendix B, are authorized 
under the terms and conditions of this general permit upon submission 
of a notice of intent (NOI). This NOI form has been included 
as appendix B of this general permit. 
   2. Under Part I, Section B.4. Expanding Facilities, facilities 
expanding operations to more than the number of animals specified 
in 40 CFR part 122 appendix B(a) will be required to submit 
a new NOI prior to construction of the expansion. 
   3. To comply with statutory requirements in 40 CFR 122.49; 
Part I of the general permit, Section C. Limitations on Coverage 
has been changed to limit from permit coverage: CAFOs which 
adversely affect a listed or proposed to be listed endangered 
or threatened species or its critical habitat; CAFOs which adversely 
affect properties listed or eligible for listing in the National 
Register of Historic Places. 
   4. Item 4. of Part I. Section C. has been changed to limit 
from coverage CAFOs that discharge all their runoff and waste 
water to a publicly owned sanitary sewer system. 
   5. The term "waters of the U.S." has been clarified in various 
parts of this general permit, listing the defined waters in 
40 CFR 122.2. This regulatory definition applies for every reference 
to waters of the U.S. in this general permit. 
   6. Part III, Section B. has been clarified to state more 
clearly that when provisions in an approved Soil Conservation 
Service (SCS) plan are substituted for a applicable Best Management 
Practices (BMP) or portions of the Pollution Prevention Plan 
(PPP), the PPP must refer to the appropriate section of the 
SCS plan and a copy of this SCS plan must be kept on site.
   7. Date log requirements indicating monthly inspection of 
the retention facility have been changed to quarterly inspections.
   8. Requirements for manure which is sold or given to other 
persons for use have been moved from Part III, Section B. to 
Part III, Section B.2.f.(2)(J). These requirements have been 
changed to require the permittee to maintain a log of manure 
sold in wet tons, dry tons, or cubic yards and the permittee 
must make available to the hauler any nutrient sample analysis 
from that year.
   9. Requirements for Retention Capacity Calculations, Retention 
Facility Embankments, Retention Facility Dewatering, and permanent 
markers have been moved from Part III, Section B.1. to Part 
III, Section B.2.f.(2) (B), (C), (D), and (E) respectively. 
Slight changes have been made in these items for clarification.
   10. The requirement that facilities shall not expand operations, 
either in size or numbers of animals, prior to amending or enlarging 
the waste handling procedures and structures to accommodate 
any additional wastes that will be generated by the expanded 
operations has been added to Part III, Section B.1.b.
   11. Part III, Section B.d. has been modified that new facilities 
shall not be built in a water of the U.S.
   12. Part III, Section B.f. has been changed to clarify that 
water retention facilities or holding pens may not be located 
in the 100-year flood plain unless the facility is protected 
from inundation and damage that may occur during that flood 
event.
   13. Part III, Section B.g. has been modified that facilities 
shall not locate waste water retention facilities, holding pens 
or waste/wastewater disposal sites closer to water wells than 
specified by State requirements.
   14. Part III, Section B.i. has been modified that waste handling, 
treatment, and management shall not result in the contamination 
of drinking water.
   15. Part III, Section B.1. has been modified to require the 
proper disposal time of dead animals to be three (3) days instead 
of 24 hours.
   16. Items n. and o. of Part III, Section B. have been moved 
from the Pollution Prevention Plans.
   17. Part III, Section B.2.a. has been changed to clarify 
that the Pollution Prevention Plan may refer to the Soil Conservation 
Service plan when the SCS plan documentation contains equivalent 
requirements for the facility.
   18. The schedule for completion of Pollution Prevention Plans 
has been modified in Part III, Section B.2.b. to separate large 
facilities, medium facilities, and small facilities with different 
time requirements for completion.
   19. The time requirement for changes in a Pollution Prevention 
Plan which does not meet minimum requirements after notification 
by the Director has been changed from 30 to 90 days in Part 
III, Section B.2.d.
   20. Part III, Section B.2.f.(2)(F) has included a requirement 
that a rain gauge shall be kept on site and properly maintained 
and that log of all measurable rainfall events shall be kept 
with the Pollution Prevention Plan. This also replaces the requirement 
in the draft general permit in Part IV, Monitoring and Reporting 
Requirements, that requires information from the nearest available 
weather station concerning precipitation events.
   21. Under Part III, Section B.2.f.(2)(H)(a), documentation 
of no hydrologic connection has been simplified and condensed; 
no longer requiring depth to ground water, thickness and lithology 
of the uppermost aquifer, and a piezometric map. This item now 
allows for documentation of no hydrologic connection to be certified 
by a qualified ground water scientist.
   22. Site-specific conditions are now considered in the design 
of liner construction in Part III, Section B.2.f.(2)(H)(b).
   23. The requirement for liner inspection has been removed 
from Part III, Section B.2.f.(2)(H)(c). 
   24. Part III, Section B.2.f.(2)(H)(c) now includes the requirement 
that no trees shall be allowed to grow within the potential 
distance of the root zone.
   25. These requirements: Documentation of liner maintenance 
shall be kept with the Pollution Prevention Plan. The permittee 
shall have a Soil Conservation Service engineer, Professional 
Engineer, or qualified groundwater scientist review the documentation 
and do a site evaluation every five years, or once every permit 
term whichever comes first; have been added to Part III, Section 
B.2.f.(2)(H)(c).
   26. Part III, Section B.2.f.(2)(H)(c) has been changed to 
only require the installation of a leak detection system or 
monitoring wells when notified by the Director that the potential 
exists for the contamination of surface waters or drinking water. 
Documentation of compliance with the notification and all sampling 
data must be kept with the Pollution Prevention Plan.
   27. "It shall be considered `Proper Operation and Maintenance' 
for a facility which has been properly operated, and that is 
in danger of imminent overflow due to chronic or catastrophic 
rainfall, to discharge waste waters to land application sites 
for filtering prior to discharging to waters of the U.S." has 
been added as Part III, Section B.2.f.(2)(I)(e).
   28. "The operator shall notify the appropriate fish and wildlife 
agency in the event of any significant fish, wildlife, or migratory 
bird/endangered species kill or die-off on or near retention 
ponds or in fields where waste has been applied, and which could 
reasonably have resulted from waste management at the facility" 
has been added to Part III, Section B.2.f.(2)(I)(h) to provide 
protection from land disposal or application of waste water.
   29. Where land application sites are isolated from surface 
waters and no potential exists for runoff to reach a water of 
the U.S., application rates may exceed nutrient crop uptake 
rates as provided in an approved state program. No land application 
under this section shall cause or contribute to a violation 
of water quality standards has been added as Part III, Section 
B.2.f.(2)(I)(h).
   30. Part III, Section B.2.f.(2)(J) requires: (1) A description 
of waste handling procedures and equipment availability; (2) 
the calculations and assumptions used for determining land application 
rates; and (3) any nutrient analysis data if laboratory analysis 
is done to be included in the Pollution Prevention Plan if manure 
is land applied.
   31. Storage and/or surface disposal of manure in the 100-
year flood plain or near water courses is allowed if protected 
by adequate berms or other structures; Part III, Section B.2.f.(2)(J)(a). 
The clarification: The land application of wastes at agricultural 
rates shall not be considered surface disposal in this case 
and is not prohibited, has also been added.
   32. "Where land application sites are isolated from surface 
waters and no potential exists for runoff to reach a water of 
the U.S., application rates may exceed nutrient crop uptake 
rates as provided in an approved state program. No land application 
under this section shall cause or contribute to a violation 
of water quality standards", has been added as Part III, Section 
B.2.f.(2)(J)(i).
   33. The item on good housekeeping requirements has been removed 
from Part III, Section B.2. Pollution Prevention Plan requirements.
   34. The requirements for the evaluation of Recommended Management 
Practices listed in Appendix A has been removed Part III, Section 
B.2. Pollution Prevention Plan requirements.
   35. Discharge sampling requirements have been modified based 
on CAFO size to separate large facilities, medium facilities, 
and small facilities with different schedules for analysis in 
Part IV, Section A.5.
   36. Analysis requirements for total phosphorus, total Kjeldahl 
nitrogen and nitrate nitrogen have been removed from Part IV, 
Section A.7.
   37. Items for Anticipated Noncompliance, Other Noncompliance 
Reporting, Bypass of Treatment Facilities, and Upset Conditions 
have been removed from Part IV.
   38. Items regarding Toxic Pollutants and Oil and Hazardous 
Substance Liability have been removed from Part V.
   39. Definitions for Agronomic rates, Best Available Technology, 
Best Conventional Technology, Hydrologic connection, and Qualified 
groundwater scientist have been added to, and the definition 
for Bypass has been removed from Part VII.
   40. The definition for Concentrated animal feeding operation 
has been clarified in Part VII.

Part II. Responsiveness Summary

   Many issues, questions and comments were submitted to the 
Agency during the public comment period. Below is a summary 
of the issues raised and the Agency's responses.

A. Corrections and General Permitting Issues

   1. Several commenters requested corrections of language in 
the fact sheet published with the proposed permit. A fact sheet 
is published to explain the permitting decisions used to develop 
a proposed permit. A responsiveness summary or a response to 
comments accompanies the final permit and serves as the explanation 
of the permitting decisions made in response to the comments 
received. Because the fact sheet will not be published again, 
corrections to it will not be necessary. Where the comments 
illustrate confusion or misunderstanding of issues or terms 
explained in the fact sheet, they will be addressed in the responsiveness 
summary under the appropriate subject heading.
   2. Almost all commenters requested answers in writing to 
the questions, comments, and concerns which they submitted. 
Unfortunately many comments were received with no return address. 
It is the administrative responsibility of EPA to provide a 
responsiveness summary to all persons that provided comments 
during the public hearing process or public comment period (40 
CFR 124.17). EPA regrets that it will not be able to send a 
response to comments to those commenters that neglected to provide 
the Agency with a return address; however, the publication of 
this responsiveness summary will serve to inform those persons 
of the Agency's decisions.
   3. Many of the comments received express concern that the 
only reason that Region 6 is issuing the permit is in response 
to special interest groups opposed to the dairy industry in 
Texas. The commenters are concerned that EPA will be swayed 
in its permitting decisions by portions of reports which were 
taken out of context to reflect a worst case scenario. These 
persons requested that Region 6 not rush its efforts for the 
Region to use all available sources of information to develop 
a reasonable general permit. A few persons questioned whether 
Region 6 would really listen and consider the testimony and 
comments made at the public hearings which were held in each 
state.
   EPA reviews all documents referred to in comments which are 
submitted during the comment period. EPA weighs all scientific 
and factual information, and other comments whether submitted 
in writing during the comment period, or as testimony during 
the public hearing process as required in 40 CFR 124.11 and 
124.12.
   4. Many persons pointed out that farmers are natural conservationists, 
and as such are natural environmentalists. Some persons opposed 
the permit because they believed that agriculture was being 
blamed for "naturally occurring circumstances". Many persons 
were concerned with the perception of agriculture as a source 
of pollution that would accompany the issuance of this permit. 
These commenters suggest that the private citizens which operate 
these facilities are more familiar with what is "Proper Operation 
and Management" of a CAFO than EPA, and that they can make better 
determinations about the protection of the natural resources 
of the land and water.
   While EPA agrees with the commenters that most farmers are 
good natural conservationists, it is apparent from the growing 
body of information that water quality problems exist which 
are attributable to animal waste management. Reasons for this 
may vary, however, it is EPA's responsibility to regulate all 
point sources of pollution under the authority of the Clean 
Water Act. These facilities are included in the definition of 
a point source in part 502 of the Act. Region 6 believes that 
the requirements reflected in the final general permit do coincide 
with the good management practices already established in the 
agricultural community, and will not prove too burdensome for 
those operators which have established good environmental practices.
   5. The Region received several comments expressing the need 
for a permit to be available for unpermitted CAFOs to be compliant 
with the Clean Water Act. CAFOs in Region 6 may be discharging 
in violation of the Clean Water Act. Region 6 believes that 
the first step in improving water quality and Clean Water Act 
compliance is to provide a permitting vehicle which will be 
protective for the environment and cost effective for the operators 
of CAFOs.
   6. While many commenters and producer groups endorse the 
Region's use of a general permit, some commenters question the 
need for a permitting program in Region 6 states. Many persons 
questioned if any water quality problems exist in Region 6 which 
are associated with animal wastes or CAFOs. Many commenters 
suggested that EPA exhaust all state delegation activities before 
issuing a general permit. These commenters stated that they 
believed it would cause confusion over jurisdiction if there 
were both state and federal level regulation with which to comply.
   Region 6 believes that the time for federal permitting action 
in the four states administered by this Region is past due. 
EPA Region 6 carries the burden of a large permitting program 
and must prioritize its workload. The most important aspect 
of this priority system is the impairment of water quality. 
It has become apparent that animal wastes are one of the major 
contributors to water quality problems in many watersheds across 
the nation. In Region 6 the water quality inventories which 
are complied by the state water quality agencies show a significant 
number of water bodies which are being impaired by the contribution 
of animal wastes. In Texas there are at least four segments 
of state river basins which are not meeting the standards set 
by the state. Of the water bodies which are listed as impaired 
in Oklahoma the waters impaired by CAFOs total 5 lake segments 
out of 21, and 10 river segments out of 42. In addition, Oklahoma 
has documented several fish kills associated with CAFO runoff. 
Oklahoma collects more specific information on CAFO associated 
water quality problems which may explain the higher numbers. 
Several segments of the Lake Pontchartrain Basin in Louisiana 
are impaired by CAFOs, as well as two other river basins in 
that state. New Mexico, which has fewer surface waters, has 
more documentation on groundwater contamination problems, however, 
CAFO impairment of the Pecos River Basin is being tracked by 
the state.
   EPA agrees with the commenters inclination toward the delegation 
of the NPDES program authority to the States of Region 6. Section 
402(b) of the Act allows states to request authority to administer 
the NPDES program in lieu of the EPA. This means that States 
must interpret and apply national standards through day-to-day 
program actions and mount a vigorous program of compliance and 
enforcement. To assume delegation a formal program package consisting 
of a Memorandum of Agreement, a Program Description, the Attorney 
General's Statement and a letter from the Governor must be submitted 
to the Region. The Region must carefully review the package 
for statutory completeness. Currently there are 39 states which 
have been authorized the NPDES program. Of the 39 states, the 
one State in Region 6 to have been authorized is the State of 
Arkansas. At the present time, EPA has not received an approvable 
program from any of the remaining four states, Louisiana, Texas, 
Oklahoma, and New Mexico. Region 6 is continuing to work closely 
with states in the Region, assisting them in their efforts to 
assume the NPDES program. Until the State has assumed authority 
for the NPDES permitting program, the permittee will be responsible 
for compliance with both State and Federal requirements. States 
which administer the NPDES program must control CAFOs with the 
same degree of stringency and in a manner consistent with the 
federal regulations.
   7. Several of the comments received suggested that this permit 
was more stringent than the federal regulations. A few persons 
questioned why the four States in Region 6 would be subject 
to the general permit and not the other States in the nation. 
Region 6 has developed a general permit which reflects the federal 
program requirements which exist now. These requirements include 
a technology standard which was implemented in 1974, and the 
minimum technology standard for storm water permits (a Pollution 
Prevention Plan) which was established in 1991. The permit also 
includes Best Management Practices which the Agency believes 
are necessary to protect water quality from improper management 
of animal wastes. EPA would like to remind the public that a 
federally administered permit must include compliance with some 
federal programs which are not required of state administered 
permits (e.g. the requirement of an environmental review and 
possible Environmental Impact Statement under the National Environmental 
Policy Act). Additionally, Region 6 is only authorized to permit 
facilities in Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and New Mexico. Region 
6 oversees the program administered by Arkansas.
   8. Many commenters from Oklahoma were concerned with EPA's 
authority to regulate CAFO facilities in their state because 
the state does not recognize CAFOs as a point source. Many commenters 
and producer groups questioned why EPA would have the need to 
regulate facilities which were already sufficiently regulated 
under existing state programs. Many commenters stated that the 
permit was more stringent than the state requirements. These 
commenters further requested that EPA simply adopt the existing 
state program or permit instead of using the proposed general 
permit; and that the permit should contain only the state water 
quality standards and requirements.
   Section 502 of the Clean Water Act includes concentrated 
animal feeding operations in the definition of point sources 
to be regulated by EPA through NPDES permits. This requirement 
of federal law is reflected in the definitions at 40 CFR 122.23 
and Appendix B which define concentrated animal feeding operations 
as a point source.
   Section 301 of the Act clearly states that EPA cannot be 
less stringent than currently defined in the national technology 
standards. However, it should be noted that any more stringent 
state treatment standards are required to be included in NPDES 
permits by this section of the Clean Water Act. EPA must, at 
a minimum, include the technology standards established by the 
Agency.
   9. Many of the comments provided by operators, producer groups, 
and state agricultural agencies request that EPA use the information 
and services available through the USDA Soil Conservation Service 
and state Agriculture Departments and Extension Services in 
the development of the permit. Many persons expressed the opinion 
that the states had developed sound water quality management 
programs and that Region 6 should use them. Additionally, some 
commenters suggested that EPA should consult with the varying 
state agencies before proposing any new programs in that state.
   During the comment period and in the process of final decision 
making, EPA has consulted with both the regulated community 
and agricultural agencies in all the States. In addition EPA 
has consulted the expertise of the USDA Soil Conservation Service 
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife.
   10. Several comments requested that the general permits for 
the four States be the same in regards to the requirements in 
the permit to provide economic equity. Conversely, many persons 
expressed doubt about EPA's ability to provide a general permit 
which would take into account the diversity of locale, geography, 
and climatic conditions that exist in Region 6. Some concerned 
citizens question EPA's use of a general permit for and its 
ability to protect water quality.
   In developing this general permit, Region 6 has tried to 
maintain consistent requirements for each of the four states. 
However, where more stringent state standards exist and are 
needed to protect water quality in that state, specific state 
language or requirements have been included in the general permit. 
Region 6 has also tried to include requirements which will be 
protective of the environment while allowing for site specific 
variation when it is appropriate to provide adequate environmental 
protection. EPA has included management practices and pollution 
prevention requirements to insure the protectiveness of the 
general permit while at the same time has allowed for site specific 
variation where it can be documented as appropriate. The permit 
provides for the protection of water quality and site specific 
flexibility.
   11. A few commenters stated the opinion that shorter, clearer 
permits which were easier to comply with would produce more 
compliance, and therefore, provide more environmental protection. 
Many commenters suggested that EPA use incentives for environmental 
protection instead of burdensome regulations.
   Region 6 has worked with the public, the regulated producer 
groups, state and federal agencies to insure that this permit 
will be protective of water quality and will still be clear 
to the permittee. In addition, Region 6 has made a considerable 
effort through workshops/public hearings and this responsiveness 
summary that the regulated public understand the permit conditions. 
Region 6 believes that the regulated public will understand 
and comply with the terms of this general permit.
   12. Many owner/operators and producer groups requested that 
the permit be re-proposed as draft or submitted to the CAFO 
industry to review prior to final issuance. When EPA makes substantial 
changes to the permit requirements, the Agency may elect to 
provide an additional public comment period on the changes. 
EPA has made only minor changes to the draft permit. Region 
6 has attempted to make both the format and the language of 
the permit clearer. The requirements of "no discharge", Best 
Management Practices and the documentation of a Pollution Plan 
remain the same. EPA will not be re-proposing a draft permit. 
The permit will become final 30 days after the date of publication 
in the Federal Register.
   13. Some person were concerned that more government professionals 
would have to be hired at considerable salaries to enforce the 
requirements in the permit. Others suggested the EPA should 
utilize the idea proposed in Texas to utilize state health inspectors 
for water quality assessment. Health inspector's on average, 
visit these facilities once per month.
   Congress authorizes EPA's operating budget. EPA assumes the 
responsibility of apportioning its' budget to best address society's 
challenges to water quality. Information from the States will 
help Region 6 determine its inspection priorities.
   14. Many comments were received expressing concern that many 
of the water quality problems associated with animal feeding 
operations were a result of smaller, unregulated facilities. 
Many commenters note that these guidelines and requirements 
apply to the larger facilities, and requested that EPA develop 
regulatory guidelines for small facilities which do not fall 
under the regulation of this permit. Several concerned citizens 
expressed the opinion that the Bosque River Basin watershed 
was over populated by dairy and cattle operations; and that 
this concentrations of operations was unique to this watershed. 
These citizens requested that this watershed be excluded from 
the general permit and be required to obtain individual permits 
in order to protect surface water and ground water resources.
   EPA agrees that, of the watersheds which are impaired by 
animal wastes, the majority of the operations in those watersheds 
are not specifically listed as point sources in 40 CFR 122.23. 
This may indicate that non-point source facilities are significant 
contributors to water quality impairments. However small facilities 
can be designated as a "point source" by the Director after 
a site assessment has been done, and can be regulated using 
this permit or another permitting action.
   EPA does not believe that the Bosque River watershed is unique 
in Region 6. There are several watersheds in Region 6 which 
are heavily populated by animal feeding operations and which 
have impaired water quality. A review of these watersheds with 
State water quality officials indicates that the water quality 
impairment is likely to result of many factors. These factors 
would include the number, types and sizes of facilities, the 
nature of the watershed, the climatic conditions of the area, 
as well as, contributions from unregulated facilities and non-
compliance problems. EPA believes that the first step in protecting 
the water quality in these watersheds and others in the Region 
from water quality impairments from animal wastes is the issue 
of this general permit. This will provide stringent requirements 
which are protective of water quality, and at the same time 
provides EPA with a strong enforcement tool against non-compliance. 
EPA points out that the issuance of this general permit does 
not preclude the Director from requiring facilities on the Bosque 
watershed to apply for an individual permit. Region 6 is also 
concerned about the animal waste contributions of the non-point 
sources on regional watersheds. For this reason Region 6 is 
an active participant of the national workgroup to study EPA's 
activities and its regulation of CAFOs.
   15. Many commenters questioned why Region 6 has "linked" 
the Storm Water NPDES program with Concentrated Animal Feeding 
Operations (CAFOs). Several operators and producer associations 
believe that CAFOs are exempt from the Storm Water Program because 
their Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code is 0211. 
Several commenters requested clarification of the reference 
to the Storm Water Program which requires facilities covered 
by the program to "at a minimum obtain coverage under a general 
permit promulgated for storm water".
   The regulations which were published November 16, 1990 (55 
FR 47990) require specific industries to apply for NPDES permits 
which cover storm water discharges. The final regulation listed 
14 categories of industries which have "storm water discharges 
associated with industrial activity" which require permitting. 
Category 1 of the storm water regulations included all facilities 
which have National Effluent Guidelines. Feedlots (facilities 
with concentrations of 1000 animal units or more) have National 
Effluent Guidelines listed at 40 CFR 412. These facilities were 
required to apply for their storm water related discharges on 
or before October 1, 1992 or gain coverage under a permit which 
has been issued to cover storm water discharge requirements. 
EPA has included the technology requirements published for storm 
water discharges in the general permit for CAFOs. This general 
permit includes permitting requirements based on the effluent 
guidelines for process waters (all produced waters and runoff 
from the areas of animal confinement) and Pollution Prevention 
Plan to address requirements for all storm water related discharges. 
This general permit satisfies all permitting requirements for 
the feedlot industry and CAFOs.
   16. Several comments received requested a definition of storm 
water runoff. Storm water runoff includes runoff caused by rainfall, 
snowmelt, or drainage which flows overland instead of percolation 
into the soils due to saturation. This term is no longer included 
in the CAFO general permit.
   17. Many commenters who understood the coverage and technology 
requirements of the storm water program were concerned that 
the storm water permitting strategy as outlined by EPA would 
cause storm water minimum requirements to be in the process 
of change for several years, and that this would require that 
the regulated public under this program to be "shooting at a 
moving target" when trying to construct or meet permitting requirements.
   It is true that the requirements for storm water discharges 
from many industries are still being developed. However, the 
technology standard applied to feedlot operations is very protective 
of water quality and has been in place since 1974.
   18. Many commenters noted that the economic analysis for 
the national effluent guidelines was done twenty years ago. 
Several persons stated that the original cost of construction 
was estimated at $24,000-28,000, and that the cost of constructing 
the same structures today are much higher (estimated at $100,000). 
Many persons requested that an economic analysis be done to 
determine the cost of the proposed permit requirements. The 
regulated public expressed concern that the cost of compliance 
with the permit technology and recordkeeping requirements would 
be a serious burden on the family owned facilities. Several 
commenters noted that the cost of the Texas permitting program 
had cost dairies up to $200 per cow. They estimated that the 
requirements in the proposed permit would cost dairies $300 
per cow. Many persons expressed the opinion that the state regulatory 
programs were adequate; and that a federal permit was duplication 
and a waste of tax dollars. A few commenters point out that 
the Labor Statistics Board noted the agriculture industry as 
having a 5% increase in employment while all other industries 
have dropped. These commenters state that agribusiness supports 
many employees and related businesses, and an economic impact 
on the dairy industry will have an economic impact on the national 
economy. Commenters asked if the Agency had taken into account 
the effect this permit would have on small businesses. These 
commenters reminded EPA of the current Administrations efforts 
to reduce the regulatory burden on small business. They explain 
that this additional cost of doing business would drive up costs 
and have a detrimental effect on the nations economy.
   Challenges to the requirements established in effluent guidelines 
must be made when the guidelines are publicly noticed. In issuing 
a permitting action, EPA is under no obligation to defend either 
the technology or the economic analysis done in establishing 
an existing effluent guideline or new source performance standard. 
However, Region 6 has provided information in this responsiveness 
summary which compares the current status of the economic impact 
to the economic analysis which was published with the guidelines. 
Region 6 has also made an attempt to include the impact of the 
required Best Management Practices and Pollution Prevention 
Plan. The July 22, 1992 draft notice summarized EPA's belief 
that this permit would be more economically beneficial to the 
regulated community than the individual application process.
   The Clean Water Act requires that EPA consider a "no discharge" 
technology where it is feasible when establishing effluent guidelines 
for industries. In the economic analysis that was done in the 
early 1970's it was established that the waste products generated 
by concentrated animal feeding operations were reusable resources 
and need not be discharged into waters of the U.S. The original 
economic analysis for construction of the basic technology was 
done when the BAT requirements for the national effluent guidelines 
(40 CFR part 412) were published in February of 1974.
   Several commenters indicated that the original economic analysis 
was no longer realistic to determine economic impacts on Concentrated 
Animal Feeding Operations. In addition, several commenters felt 
that the cost of these draft requirements would be so burdensome 
as to force them to discontinue their operations. Several commenters 
felt that the economic impact of discontinuing these operations 
would be even more severe for the communities in which they 
operate. In response, the Agency performed updated cost estimates 
(using November 1992 dollar values) for the improvements required 
for various concentrated animal feeding operations, using installation 
and cost information provided by the Soil Conservation Service, 
Tarleton State University Institute for Applied Research, and 
the Texas Agricultural Extension Service.
   These comparisons indicate that the costs originally developed 
were reasonable and realistic for today. Table 1 gives a summary 
of these cost estimates, with a range of approximate values, 
from basic, minimum requirements to full installation of all 
best available technology, for various operations.


  Table 1-Approximate Cost Estimates for Waste Storage Ponds, Diversions and  
                                  Monitoring                                  
                                                                              
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
   Type of operation    ³   Cost for medium size  ³   Cost for large size     
                        ³        operation        ³        operation          
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
                        ³                         ³                           
Dairy ................. ³ 200 head-$20,000 ...... ³ 700 head-$65,000.         
Beef .................. ³ 300 head-$40,000 ...... ³ 1,000 head-$70,000.       
Swine ................. ³ 750 head-$40,000 ...... ³ 2,500 head-$65,000.       
Poultry ............... ³ 9,000 birds-$85,000 ... ³ 100,000 birds-$165,000.   
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ


   The cost estimates developed when the original regulations 
were promulgated in 1974 were approximately $24,000 to $28,000 
for installation of a comparable "no discharge technology" type 
of system. These costs established in 1974, when extrapolated 
to 1992 dollars using the standard Engineering News Record cost 
indexes for construction of this type of waste management facility, 
increased to approximately $98,000. The cost estimates shown 
in Table 1 were developed from current cost information (1992 
dollars) for these types of facilities. This comparison clearly 
shows that the cost estimates are well within the original estimates 
for the installation of the required technology.
   Information has been received from other environmental professionals, 
currently engaged in providing these services, on the costs 
associated with improvements based on the requirements of the 
draft regulations. This information indicates that these cost 
estimates are within the range of reasonable and realistic costs 
for these types of available technology. One report prepared 
by an individual had costs for specific items that were up to 
ten times the current costs for these available services, and 
had many items listed in their costs estimates (e.g. on-site 
dewatering equipment, application prepared by an engineer, plastic 
covers for manure piles, etc.) that are not required under the 
requirements of this final permit. Even with all of these extra 
unnecessary costs added into the estimate, the economic impact 
was an increase of less than 4 percent over current costs under 
existing state regulations.
   EPA provides economic analyses in establishing a requirement 
of a new technology. EPA is not required to provide an economic 
analysis for the best management practices (BMP's) or recordkeeping 
included in permits to insure the compliance with effluent limitations 
and a record of that compliance. However, Region 6 recognizes 
that the cost of compliance with the management practices and 
recordkeeping requirements of the permit constitute an additional 
cost to the permittee. Region 6 has made a sincere effort to 
reduce the burden of these requirements by reducing and/or modifying 
many of these where water quality will not be compromised.
   The pollution prevention plan required by the final permit 
will have several components, including a site map of the facility 
(existing maps or U.S.G.S. maps may be used), a list of the 
potential pollutant sources, size of retention capacity and 
site specific factors, construction specifications, information 
on direct hydrologic connections, land application rates and 
calculations, waste handling procedures, and recordkeeping requirements. 
Cost estimates provided by environmental professionals for drawing 
this information together and developing a pollution prevention 
plan range begin at approximately $2500 and increase, depending 
on the amount of work involved. However, these estimates were 
based on the Pollution Prevention Plan (PPP) which was published 
with the proposed permit which included more documentation than 
the PPP in the final permit.
   Region 6 believes that some of the documentation and all 
of the recordkeeping can be prepared by the operator at little 
expense. Much of this information is already required by state 
specific programs, and therefore the pollution prevention plan 
is a vehicle to compile the pertinent information and determine 
the additional measures that will be required to reach compliance 
with this final permit. There is no requirement that a Professional 
Engineer prepare the pollution prevention plan. It may be prepared 
by a representative of the Soil Conservation Service, an Engineer 
or other environmental professional, or, in many cases, the 
facility operator himself. The pollution prevention plan must 
include all components listed in the requirements of this final 
permit, much of which will be provided by the facility operator 
anyway. The facility operator may choose to compile this information 
and develop the pollution prevention plan himself, thus reducing 
the cost even further. The recordkeeping requirements are for 
documentation of ongoing implementation of this final permit, 
and should be done by the facility operator and staff. The cost 
of additional outside professionals should not be required to 
provide this information. Several commenters indicated that 
no other state or region had requirements as strict as those 
required in the draft permit. In response, the Agency believes 
that the requirements listed in the draft permit reflect the 
regulations as they are now in place, and as they have been 
since the national effluent guidelines were promulgated in 1974. 
Many of the best management practices and pollution prevention 
plan requirements reflect the best technology available as developed 
in 1991 in the storm water program.
   In addition, there are several states that have requirements 
as strict or even stricter than the minimum requirements set 
forth in the draft permit. In a report, "Livestock and Poultry 
Waste Management: Problems and Solutions," prepared for the 
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, in May 1991, summaries of several state programs 
indicate that Ohio, Oregon and Florida all have programs that 
reflect more stringent requirements. Additional states, such 
as California and Kansas, also have requirements as strict or 
stricter than the Agency's requirements for this permit.
   While EPA does not wish to place an economic burden on the 
meat, poultry, and dairy industries, it must remind the regulated 
public that permitting responsibility and the retention technology 
for these industries were established as regulations almost 
20 years ago. Those facilities which remain unpermitted and 
without the retention capacity to retain the 25 year, 24 hour 
storm event have been in violation of federal law since 1976 
or for the life of their business, which ever came later. These 
facilities which have been noncompliant with the requirements 
of the regulations and the Clean Water Act have enjoyed an economic 
benefit over other facilities which have complied with the established 
requirements.
   19. Many commenters expressed concerns over how this permit 
conforms with the Paperwork Reduction Act and the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act. Some commenters questioned how the Agency could 
state that this permit would be less paperwork and how it would 
create an economic benefit for the regulated community. In addition, 
several commenters were concerned about the effect of this permit 
on small businesses.
   EPA's action in today's permit does not require EPA to perform 
additional activities under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The 
Agency notes that, while some paperwork is required in order 
to meet the requirements of this final permit, it is substantially 
less than the amount of paperwork required to file an application 
and comply with an individual National Permit Discharge Elimination 
System (NPDES) permit. Permits are required for these facilities 
under the Clean Water Act of 1972, and the two vehicles available 
for permitting are this General Permit and an individual permit. 
Individual permitting is very time-consuming for both the applicant 
and the Agency, and requires much more paperwork, effort and 
expense for the applicant. In addition, the documentation requirements 
of the General Permit for pollution prevention activities are 
the minimum acceptable requirements to the Agency for any industrial 
permit for CAFOs and would also be included in any individual 
permit issued for a concentrated animal feeding operation. Thus, 
compliance with this final permit does reflect the principles 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., as well 
as providing an economic benefit in the form of reduced costs 
for application and compliance. The information collection requirements 
of this permit have already been approved by the Office of Management 
and Budget in submissions made for the NPDES effluent guidelines 
and the storm water programs under provisions of the Clean Water 
Act.
   Section of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, requires that 
the Agency assess the impact of rules on small entities. The 
regulatory definition of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations 
promulgated by EPA in 1976 (40 CFR part 122, appendix B) addresses 
medium and large operations (300 slaughter cattle, 200 dairy 
cattle, 750 swine, 150 horses, 3000 sheep or lambs, 16,000 turkeys, 
9000 laying hens or broilers, 1500 ducks, or 300 animal units, 
or more). Therefore, this permit excludes small businesses with 
operations of less than these numbers of animals, unless specifically 
designated by the Director. The Director would evaluate these 
factors as well as potential impacts to water quality of surface 
waters of the U.S. or significant contributions of pollutants 
to those waters, in the designation process.

B. Comments on Part I of the General Permit-Coverage and Eligibility

   1. From the comments received it is apparent that many persons 
may be confused about the definition of a Concentrated Animal 
Feeding Operation as a point source of pollutants requiring 
an NPDES permit. Some comments questioned if pasture areas were 
subject to regulation. 
   The regulatory definition found at 40 CFR 122.23 and part 
122 appendix B encompasses all animal operations which have 
industrial characteristics. The definition "concentrated animal 
feeding operation" includes the number of animals confined; 
the length of time the animals are confined at the facility; 
and the type of the confinement. The definition does not include 
areas of the facility where crops or forage crops are maintained 
throughout the growing season. The definition is included in 
the Part VII. of the general permit. 
   2. Several comments received voiced disagreement with the 
appropriateness of the phrase "confined in pasture operations". 
   Confined in pasture operations represents the restriction 
of pastured animals by a fence, wall, natural impasse or other 
such barrier to prevent these animals from free movement off 
of property or pasture. Confinement of animals on pasture lands 
are not regulated under this permit. This general permit regulated 
the pollutants from areas where animals are confined in concentrated 
situations. 
   3. Many persons requested that EPA explain the significance 
of the "Alta Verde" court decision, and how that relates to 
the exemption from NPDES requirements for those facilities which 
do not discharge. Some persons believe that the decision in 
this case removes the incentive for facilities to "over build" 
to avoid permitting requirements, and therefore, the extra environmental 
protection of a system that truly never discharges. Several 
commenters believed that the retention capacity design to contain 
the 25 year, 24 hour storm event excluded a facility from NPDES 
permitting requirements.
   It is not within the scope of EPA's authority to determine 
the significance of the courts ruling in the Alta Verde case. 
In the Alta Verde case the courts ruled that a retention structure 
which was built to retain all runoff from the 25 year, 24 hour 
storm event was not exempted from obtaining an NPDES permit, 
and that all discharges from such a facility would be considered 
in violation unless in compliance with an NPDES permit. Region 
6 believes the Alta Verde case corroborates the explanation 
given by Region 6 in the preamble of the proposed permit published 
July 22, 1992 (57 FR 32475). Where a facility has built a retention 
system which has the capacity to retain the 25 year, 24 hour 
storm event, and the facility maintains that capacity properly, 
any discharges due to the occurrence of extreme rainfall events 
will not be a violation of the Clean Water Act if those discharges 
are in compliance with an NPDES permit. The regulations at 40 
CFR part 122 appendix B state that if a facility discharges 
only in the event of the 25 year, 24 hour storm event, then 
the facility is not considered to be a point source discharger. 
This means the only discharges which can be discharged without 
violating the CWA are those in compliance with an NPDES permit, 
or as a result of the statistical event which happens only about 
once every 25 years. The Court in Alta Verde ruled that the 
design capacity of the retention structure is irrelevant in 
determining Clean Water Act jurisdiction. It is not possible 
for a facility to predict with certainty the design capacity 
needed to retain the volume from largest secession of chronic 
rainfall events that may occur between 25 year, 24 hour events 
(approximately a 25 year period).
   4. Many persons requested clarification on whether the definition 
includes stockyards facilities. These commenters contend that 
these operations do not generate much wastes and that the requirements 
in the permit would put an economic hardship on these businesses. 
Several commenters requested that EPA add the word "consecutive" 
to the reference to 45 days in the definition. One commenter 
requested that the definition be changed to include facilities 
on which animals were fed and maintained for 29 days out of 
a 12 month period.
   The definition requires EPA to regulate facilities through 
NPDES permitting if animals are on the facility for 45 days 
or more out of a 12 month period. Region 6 believes strongly 
that it is clearly the intent of the regulation to include feedyards 
and stock yards which have animals maintained and fed for 45 
days a year at the facilities. It is irrelevant whether they 
are the same animals for the 45 day duration, or whether it 
is a consecutive 45 days. It is beyond the scope of Region 6's 
authority to amend a promulgated regulation.
   5. Many persons and producer groups requested clarification 
on the terms "continuous flow watering systems" and "liquid 
manure handling systems" to determine which poultry operations 
will be subject to permitting under NPDES.
   Poultry facilities which have no discharge at all to waters 
of the U.S. are not point sources under the regulatory definition 
(40 CFR 122.23 and 122 appendix B) and are not required to obtain 
NPDES permits. This describes poultry houses which are exclusively 
under roof, which have no liquid or fluid wastewaters, and which 
removes or distributes all solid wastes and manure to proper 
agricultural uses shortly after collection. However, Region 
6 believes that facilities which are described in the regulatory 
definition as a point source, i.e., have a process water discharge, 
must have an NPDES permit. This includes those facilities which 
stockpile or land dispose of manure such that rainwater or the 
adjacent watercourse removes significant amounts of pollutants 
to waters of the U.S. These facilities have, in fact, established 
a crude liquid manure handling system and are considered to 
be point source dischargers if the number of animals confined 
at the facility meets the regulatory definition of concentrated 
animal feeding operations.
   6. Many persons supported the concept of general permit coverage 
with the no submittal of a notice of intent to the Director. 
However, many persons, state and federal agencies expressed 
concern that EPA would not have a record of the permittees for 
enforcement of the permit. Many commenters stated that if EPA 
was not going to track the permittees directly, it should not 
impose the program and leave CAFO regulation up to the states. 
   Region 6 agrees that a Notice of Intent is an appropriate 
tool in confirming which facilities are covered by the terms 
and conditions of the general permit. Region 6 is including 
a NOI form as appendix B of the general permit. EPA believes 
this will enhance the Region's ability to track and enforce 
the terms of the general permit.
   7. Many persons requested that facilities which have applied 
to Region 6 for an NPDES permit prior to the issuance of the 
general permit be granted coverage under the permit when it 
is issued. And, that the coverage extend retroactively back 
to the date the application was submitted. 
   In accordance with Part I.B.3. of the general permit facilities 
which have applied for an NPDES permit will be covered automatically 
by this permit. However, EPA cannot extend the authority of 
an NPDES permit into the past and is not able to cover facilities 
from the time of application. The Clean Water Act requires that 
any discharge be in accordance with an NPDES permit. This is 
why a permit application is to be filed 180 days prior to discharging 
into waters of the U.S. 
   8. Many comments expressed concern that permit coverage was 
only for a five year term. Facility owners and bankers stated 
that it would be impossible for facilities to obtain loans on 
a facility if its environmental requirements could change in 
five years. Sections 402(b)(1)(B) of the Clean Water Act and 
U.S. Code section 1342(b)(1)(B) requires that permits under 
NPDES be issued for a fixed term not to exceed five (5) years. 
Federal regulations found at 40 CFR 122.46(a) clearly state 
that NPDES permits are effective for a fixed term not to exceed 
5 years. EPA can require that a permit be renewed more frequently, 
but cannot extend the duration beyond the 5 years. All NPDES 
permittees, which include many different categories of industries, 
have addressed the budgetary concerns of meeting permit limitations 
which may change after a 5 year term since the inception of 
the NPDES program in 1972. 
   9. Several comments were received regarding the coverage 
of duck facilities after 1974. The commenters felt this only 
added confusion to the requirements and further, that they had 
no knowledge of any duck facilities in any of the four states 
covered by the permit. EPA has reason to believe that there 
are some duck breeding facilities in the Region. In addition, 
this general permit will provide requirements for any new facilities 
which may begin operation in the future. 
   10. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service requested that EPA 
participate in a meeting to discuss and evaluate environmental 
impact data gathered by the Fish and Wildlife Service. While 
being supportive of the general permit, Fish and Wildlife suggested 
additional permitting requirements to insure the protection 
of endangered and threatened species and their habitat. 
   EPA met with and discussed data obtained by the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service and discussed several permitting requirements 
to insure impacts to endangered and threatened species were 
addressed. Region 6 included several requirements to the final 
permit to insure compliance with the Endangered and Threatened 
Species Act. No facility can gain coverage under this general 
permit if there would be any adverse impacts to an endangered 
or threatened species or their habitat. Several permit requirements 
were added in response to comments by several entities and agencies. 
It was the Best Professional Judgement of EPA that these requirements 
be included in the permit to insure that all impacts be properly 
addressed. Among these are: 1. The permittee will immediately 
report any fish or bird kills to the Fish and Wildlife office 
nearest to the facility; 2. A site specific rain gauge will 
be required to establish permit compliance; 3. Notice of intent 
be required of the facilities to be covered; and 4. The use 
of pasture or crop lands to "filter" discharges prior to entering 
a water of the U.S. be allowed as a management practice for 
those facilities which are in danger of imminent discharge, 
even in the event of saturated conditions. EPA believes that 
the conditions of the final permit will be effective in preventing 
discharges and management practices from affecting fish and 
wildlife, including endangered species. 
   11. Many persons were confused with the terms used in the 
Agency's decision under the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA); and terms used in the coverage portion of the general 
permit to describe the requirement of an environmental review 
prior to coverage for new facilities with Performance Standards 
for New Pollutant Sources (40 CFR Part 412). The terms commented 
on were: environmental review; environmental assessment or environmental 
evaluation; and environmental impact statement. 
   The term "environmental review" will be included in the permit's 
definition section to give a regulatory definition of the process 
the Agency uses in its evaluation under the National Environmental 
Policy Act. The terms "review", "assessment", and "evaluation" 
are distinct phases associated with the NEPA process, their 
meaning being the same as would appear in a common dictionary. 
However, the following definitions are provided to clarify the 
terms as used by EPA.
   An environmental review is defined at 40 CFR 6.101(c) as 
the process whereby an evaluation of the environmental information 
provided by the permit applicant is undertaken by EPA to identify 
and evaluate the related environmental impacts to determine 
if there will be an significant impact to the environment from 
the new facility. The EPA is required by law to conduct this 
environmental review prior to issuing any permit to a facility 
with New Source Performance Standards. These standards have 
been through the regulatory review process and apply to any 
facility constructed after the standard became a regulation. 
The Agency is prohibited from permitting any discharge with 
new source standards unless the review has been done and a finding 
has been made.
   The terms environmental assessment and environmental evaluation 
are defined at 40 CFR 6.105(d) as concise public documents for 
which EPA is responsible and are prepared to provide sufficient 
data and analysis to determine whether an Environmental Impact 
Statement (EIS) or Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI or 
FONSI) is required. When the environmental review indicates 
that there are no significant impacts anticipated or when the 
project is altered to eliminate any significant adverse impacts, 
a FNSI shall be issued and made available to the public. The 
FNSI shall list any mitigation measures necessary to make the 
recommended alternative environmentally acceptable. The public 
is allowed to comment on the Agency's finding, and to provide 
information either supporting the FNSI or to the contrary during 
the permit public comment period.
   The Agency, however, may determine that it must prepare a 
Notice of Intent and Environmental Impact Statement. This process 
is described at 40 CFR 6.105(e). When the environmental review 
indicates that a significant impact may occur and significant 
adverse impacts cannot be eliminated by making changes in the 
project, a notice of intent to prepare an EIS shall be published 
in the Federal Register. Draft and final EIS shall be prepared 
and disseminated. The final EIS shall list any mitigation measures 
necessary to make the alternative environmentally acceptable.
   EPA would like to caution operators that the decisions described 
above must go to Public Notice for a minimum of 30 days prior 
to a final decision being made. The entire process can take 
several months to complete. An Environmental assessment and 
review should be initiated by the permittee several months in 
advance of constructing a new facility or expansion of a facility 
to over 100 animal units (part a. of the regulatory definition 
at 40 CFR part 122 appendix B or, part a. of the regulatory 
definition that is included in Part VII. of this permit).
   12. Many persons commented on the need for an Environmental 
Impact Statement for discharges from CAFOs. Some comments questioned 
the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) indicating 
that the cost of an EIS would place a severe economic burden 
on the regulated facilities. Many persons expressed concern 
that the economic burden would discourage new businesses or 
expansion of existing businesses.
   The Agency is required by law to prepare an EIS where it 
finds that significant environmental impacts may occur as a 
result of the new facility. In this case, all CAFOs with 1000 
animal units or more (part a. of the regulatory definition that 
is included in Part VII. of this permit) that have been constructed 
since February of 1974 are considered to be the "new sources" 
which have new source performance standards. The EPA is mandated 
to regulate in accordance with the authority provided to it 
by Congress and is not authorized to circumvent the law regardless 
of its economic impact.
   13. Some comments expressed disagreement with the Finding 
Of No Significant Impact which was published with the proposed 
general permit. Some of these comments cited water quality reports 
for the Erath and Bosque County areas. The commenters believed 
that due to the concentration of CAFOs in this area the water 
quality impacts from discharges from the retainment structures 
would constitute a significant impact and that CAFOs on the 
Bosque River Basin watershed should be evaluated in an Environmental 
Impact Statement. Several letters expressed the opinion that 
EPA had not sufficiently evaluated the potential impacts in 
this watershed, and had made judgments based on insufficient 
study of the known water quality problems in the area. In addition, 
these commenters stated the opinion that EPA's use of a general 
permit to regulate all CAFOs was inappropriate. These commenters 
believe that Erath County, Texas should be excluded from the 
general permit. It was the stated opinion of these commenters 
that EPA had not adequately addressed water quality, drinking 
water aquifers, closure of facilities, and odor control.
   While EPA agrees with commenters that animal wastes have 
had an impact on this watershed (see answer A. 14.), Region 
6 believes that the Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate 
for the facilities which are already in operation and which 
will be compliant with the permit requirements. The permit requirements 
are considered to mitigate for any water quality impacts since 
the new source performance standards were developed to insure 
an environmentally safe discharge and the effluent limits of 
no discharge take into account the state water quality standards 
for the receiving stream.
   In preparing the proposed permit, a list of possible impacts 
from CAFO facilities was compiled from various sources to determine 
the potential environmental impacts from concentrated animal 
feeding and maintenance operation activities. Among these impacts 
are: (1) Surface water quality impacts from discharges and the 
handling of the wastes generated at the site; (2) groundwater 
impacts caused by seepage from the retention lagoons and over-
application of the wastes to land; (3) endangerment to public 
health by the contamination of drinking water by the animal 
wastes which are generated at these facilities; (4) public health 
nuisance caused by odors and the resulting attraction of insects 
to the area; (5) adverse effects to endangered species and other 
wildlife by the location or by the land application, disposal, 
or management of the animal wastes; and (6) air quality impacts 
from the contribution of methane and other gases which are associated 
with the management and storage of animal wastes. 
   These impacts were evaluated in the development phase of 
writing the draft general permit. The general permit proposed 
in July included many requirements to mitigate or control the 
environmental impacts associated with CAFOs. Based on the information 
mentioned above, the Agency evaluated agricultural information, 
state water quality inventories and reports, and national information 
on water quality problems associated with animal waste management. 
It was the finding of the Environmental Services Division at 
Region 6, that the conditions of the permit and the effluent 
guidelines provided adequate requirements to control, or mitigate 
all significant impacts from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations 
which were already constructed and operating.
   It is the finding of Region 6 that the most frequent water 
quality and environmental impacts are those associated with 
the land disposal of wastes generated by CAFO facilities. EPA 
has included specific requirements in the proposed permit to 
regulate the waste disposal activities. Additionally, the environmental 
assessment indicates that overflows from the wastewater containments 
can be controlled by frequent removal of concentrated wastewaters 
and diversion of rain waters. Also, discharges from properly 
operated facilities contain significantly less pollutants than 
a facility which has been improperly operated and wastes have 
been allowed to accumulate in the retention structure. Region 
6 believes that it is the accumulation of wastes which would 
result in a more concentrated and frequent discharge that would 
cause environmental damage. The proposed permit includes the 
necessary mitigation recordkeeping and monitoring to determine 
if the discharges are in compliance with the permit requirements 
for proper operation and management.
   The Clean Water does not give EPA the specific authority 
to address ground water and facility closure requirements for 
CAFOs (see answer D.25. for a discussion of the closure requirements). 
However, Region 6 believes that the pollution prevention and 
required management practices under the permit are protective 
of ground water quality. To the extent that there is protection 
under more stringent State statutes, the permit protects drinking 
water. The permit provides stringent requirements which are 
protective of water quality, and at the same time provides EPA 
with a strong enforcement tool against non-compliance.
   Region 6 is aware that these facilities have contributed 
to significant water quality problems in areas where these facilities 
are concentrated on a particular watershed. EPA has considered 
all available information to determine if more stringent permit 
conditions are needed. Region 6 believes that the water quality 
impairments in the Bosque River Basin are mostly attributable 
to non-point sources and non-compliance with the current state 
program. It is the finding of this Agency that facilities which 
are operating in compliance with this general permit will not 
have a significant impact on the environment. It is the determination 
of this Agency that the permit conditions of "no discharge" 
coupled with the required best management practices and pollution 
prevention will be protective of State water quality standards. 
If facilities covered by this general permit are found to contribute 
to water quality impairments the permit may be reopened to include 
more stringent program elements, or the facilities may be required 
to apply for individual site specific water quality based permits.
   14. One commenter requested that EPA place strict siting 
requirements in the permit which would eliminate all CAFOs in 
the Region.
   EPA does not have the authority to require a six mile separation 
from all private residences and public buildings and areas, 
nor does the Clean Water Act provide the authority to EPA to 
eliminate business. The authority under which EPA operates, 
is limited to the regulation of discharges of pollutants to 
surface waters of the U.S.
   15. Many comments were received requesting EPA define such 
terms as "alternative general permit" "individual permit" and 
"this general permit" which are used in Part I.D. of the general 
permit. These terms were in the proposed general permit preamble, 
fact sheet, and permit. The section of the permit containing 
the bulk of these terms has been restructured for clarification. 
EPA regrets any confusion about the regulatory language in this 
part of the general permit. Where ever the term `this permit' 
appears it means this general permit which was proposed on July 
22, 1992. General permit is a term which describes a permit 
which is intended to cover a large group of permittees with 
one permit; this avoids the administrative and resource burdens 
involved in individual permit issuance. Alternative general 
permit, alternative NPDES general permit, and individual NPDES 
permit all refer to a permitting action separate from this general 
permit which may be required in the vent that coverage by this 
permit is not adequate.
   Simply stated this provision means that EPA has the authority, 
based on its judgement, to determine the appropriateness of 
this general permit with regards to any particular facility. 
If, based on site specific conditions, or water quality concerns, 
EPA believes that this general permit does not provide adequate 
requirements, EPA can require the facility to apply for an individual 
permit, or a different general permit. An application for an 
individual permit requires site specific information so that 
a more site specific permit can be developed which addresses 
the water quality concerns at that individual facility. Or, 
it may be the determination of EPA that a different general 
permit would provide more appropriate controls for the facility. 
If this is the case, the Director could require the facility 
owner/operator to apply for, and then comply with the other 
general permit.

C. Comments on Part II of the General Permit-Effluent Limitations

   1. Many comments received requested information on the technical 
information used to develop the Effluent Guidelines for feedlots, 
and the basis for the application of these guidelines to concentrated 
animal feeding operations. The information requested is contained 
in the Development Document for Effluent Limitations and New 
Source Performance Standards-Feedlot Point Source Category. 
Published January 1974. This document is no longer for sale 
through the U.S. Government Printing Office, but can be reviewed 
at a Government Repository Library. Most large city libraries, 
State libraries, and University libraries provide an area for 
government documents, and as such are Government Repository 
libraries. In preparation of a permit for feedlots EPA must, 
at a minimum include the technology requirements established 
in the effluent guidelines. The effluent guidelines apply to 
all CAFOs of 1000 animal units or more (feedlots). Region 6, 
in preparation of the proposed permit, reviewed possible permitting 
requirements which would be protective of State water quality 
standards. It was the best professional judgement of EPA that 
the effluent guidelines would be minimum technology requirement 
which could be placed in a general permit which would be protective 
of water quality. Therefore, EPA has applied the effluent guideline 
technology to all facilities covered under the general permit. 
While this may appear to some persons to be placing a more stringent 
requirement on the facilities which have less than 1000 animal 
units, these smaller facilities have the permitting option of 
applying for a site specific individual permit. It is the belief 
of Region 6 that the cost of other treatment options which would 
be protective of water quality would be more expensive than 
the requirements in the general permit. It is the opinion of 
Region 6 that this general permit provides the most cost effective 
permitting option for facilities under 1000 animal units which 
are subject to Clean Water Act requirements.
   2. Several comments received requested that the terms BAT 
and BCT be defined in the general permit. BAT, Best Available 
Technology applies to the control of toxic pollutants and pollutants 
which are not classified as toxic or conventional pollutants. 
BAT control of these pollutants is achievable through application 
of production processes and available methods, systems, and 
techniques. For this permit the required BAT, as described in 
40 CFR 412.13, requires that there be no discharge of process 
waste water pollutants to navigable waters. The design standard 
requires the retention of all wastewaters and runoff from a 
25 year, 24 hour storm event, and the proper operation and maintenance 
of the retention capacity. BCT, Best Practicable Control Technology 
applies to the control of conventional pollutants. The limitations 
established in 40 CFR 412.22 define the quality and quantity 
of pollutants or pollutant properties, which may be discharged 
by a point source (CAFO) subject to the provisions of this subpart 
after application of BCT. The BAT requirement of "no discharge" 
meets all BCT standards for the control of conventional pollutants. 
EPA has included a definition of these terms in the definition 
section of the general permit (part VI).
   3. Several comments were received requesting a definition 
of a 25-year, 24-hour storm event. This term is defined in part 
VII of this final permit. 25-year, 24-hour storm event is defined 
as 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. This means that this storm event has a 
probability of occurring once every 25 years and includes the 
maximum precipitation occurring over a 24 hour period.
   4. Several persons requested that EPA define "chronic" or 
"catastrophic" rainfall events. The terms chronic and catastrophic 
rainfall appear in the effluent guidelines requirement at 40 
CFR part 412.
   These refer to events which may result in an overflow of 
the required retention structure. Catastrophic rainfall conditions 
would mean any single event which would total the volume of 
the 25 year, 24 hour storm event. Catastrophic conditions could 
also include tornados, hurricanes or other catastrophic conditions 
which could cause overflow due to winds or mechanical damage. 
Chronic rainfall would be that series of wet weather conditions 
which would not provide opportunity for dewatering and which 
total the volume of the 25 year, 24 hour storm event.
   5. Several concerned citizens were confused about the required 
technology established in the National Effluent Guidelines. 
It is the understanding of these citizens that properly sized 
facilities should discharge only in the event of the 25 year, 
24 hour storm event. The effluent guidelines establish a requirement 
of "no discharge of process waste water pollutants from the 
facility". However, the guideline provides for no limitation 
to be placed on overflows from retention structures which are 
properly constructed and operated to maintain the capacity of 
the 25 year, 24 hour storm event. If chronic or catastrophic 
rainfall cause an overflow from a facility which has been operated 
to maintain the required volume capacity, then that overflow 
is in compliance with effluent guidelines and this permit.
   A facility which only discharges in the case of the actual 
25 year, 24 hour storm event is excluded from the definition 
of concentrated animal feeding operation (40 CFR 122.23 and 
part 122 appendix B) and is, therefore, not considered a point 
source discharger subject to NPDES permit requirements under 
the Act.
   6. Several commenters were concerned that the National Effluent 
Standards for CAFOs were more stringent than the State Standards. 
The Clean Water Act requires that States set water quality standards. 
Where these state standards are more stringent than the national 
technology requirements, EPA is required to use the more stringent 
standard. EPA cannot be less stringent than the national technology 
standard in the development of NPDES permits. (Also see answers 
A.4-9.)
   7. Several comments received requested a definition of "all 
process waste water". Process waste water refers to any process 
generated waste water and any precipitation 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 animal or poultry or direct 
products (e.g., milk, eggs). Process generated waste water is 
defined as water directly or indirectly used in the operation 
of a CAFO for any or all of the following including but not 
limited to: Spillage or overflow from animal or poultry watering 
systems; washing, cleaning, or flushing pens, barns, manure 
pits, or other feedlot facilities; direct contact swimming, 
washing, or spray cooling of animals; and dust control. This 
definition is included in the definition section of the CAFO 
general permit, part VII.
   8. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service submitted comments 
expressing concern that playa lakes are being used as animal 
waste retention ponds at many CAFOs in the western U.S. to the 
detriment of migratory birds which use the same playas for loafing, 
feeding, and breeding. Many other commenters also questioned 
the use of playa lakes as retention structures for CAFOs, essentially 
contending they are waters of the U.S. to which the permit should 
prohibit discharges. Other commenters disagreed, however, noting 
that cleaning out a playa lake and building a new retention 
structure at the same facility would be very costly and probably 
would not provide any environmental benefit. One commenter stated 
the use of a playa lake is more environmentally sound because 
they are naturally lined with caliche and clay which protects 
ground water.
   There is merit to each of these concerns. Many small playa 
lakes have historically been used as retention units by CAFOs 
with varying degree of environmental effect. Some have been 
rendered unfit for some of the uses which uncontaminated lakes 
enjoy. Conversely, some may have been improved, i.e., but for 
their use as a retention basin they would be dry much of the 
year and thus lack significant value as wildlife habitat. Some 
may have both adverse and beneficial effects on wildlife. In 
some instances, moreover, constructing an artificial retention 
pond to eliminate the use of the playa for wastewater retention 
might impose a severe economic burden on a CAFO operator without 
any significant environmental benefit. Wildlife currently attracted 
to the playa because of the wastewater it contains might well 
begin frequenting the artificial retention pond.
   Moreover, there are difficult jurisdictional issues associated 
with playa lakes which EPA Region 6 cannot, as a practical matter, 
resolve in issuing these general permits. In accordance with 
EPA's regulatory definition of "waters of the U.S. at 40 CFR 
122.2, a playa lake is a water of the U.S. if its "use, degradation 
or destruction could affect interstate or foreign commerce * 
* *." There are various types of commerce which may be affected 
by the degradation of many playa lakes, but EPA has to date 
asserted jurisdiction over them only on a case-by-case basis, 
generally in the context of enforcement actions. It is fair 
to say, however, that EPA Region 6 generally regards playa lakes 
supporting significant migratory bird use to the waters of the 
U.S.
   40 CFR 122.2, however, also excludes "waste treatment systems" 
from its definition of "waters of the U.S." Although a portion 
of that regulation prohibits the use of naturally occurring 
waters from the ambit of the waste treatment system exclusion, 
that same portion has been stayed since July 1980, when EPA 
indicated it would "promptly" reconsider issues associated with 
the prohibition. See 45 FR 48680. Accordingly, a specific playa 
may be a waste treatment system over which EPA does not assert 
jurisdiction even though it would otherwise be a water of the 
U.S. Until the Agency promulgates a regulatory clarification, 
determining whether or not a specific playa is a water of the 
U.S. or a waste treatment system is another case-by-case process. 
Moreover, because many playas are hydrologically isolated from 
other waters of the U.S., a sine qua non for a waste treatment 
system, there are many cases in which the jurisdictional issue 
is a close one.
   Because dischargers are responsible for compliance with CWA 
section 301(a) regardless of whether or not EPA has made a prior 
determination on the jurisdictional status of a particular receiving 
water, EPA may occasionally bring an enforcement action for 
unauthorized discharges to a water body the discharger regarded 
as its waste treatment system. Although each case must be determined 
individually, EPA Region 6 may consider the following non-exclusive 
factors in deciding whether specific playas are treatment systems 
or waters of the U.S.:
   a. Hydrologic separation. At a minimum, all waste treatment 
systems must segregate wastewater from other waters of the U.S., 
allowing the operator to maintain dominion over the waste prior 
to its discharge to waters of the U.S. In the case of playas 
which are naturally segregated from other waters, capacity of 
the playa thus becomes an important consideration. Using more 
playa than reasonably necessary for treating or retaining anticipated 
volumes of wastewater indicates the operator has not attempted 
to segregate its wastewater from other waters of the U.S., e.g., 
through construction of a watertight berm across the playa.
   b. Public access and multiple dischargers. A surface water 
used or susceptible to use by various parties is rarely a waste 
treatment system because such use may interfere with or be incompatible 
with its use as a waste treatment system. Accordingly, a playa 
over which the discharger cannot or does not exercise exclusive 
control will generally be regarded as a water of the U.S., not 
a waste treatment system. It should be noted that discharges 
are a type of use. Because one wastestream may interfere with 
another's treatment, a playa receiving more than one entity's 
discharge is probably no entity's waste treatment system, but 
a water of the U.S. This might not apply to the case of two 
CAFOs with the same operations and wastes discharging to the 
same playa.
   c. Physical modifications. Physical alteration of a natural 
playa to improve its ability to function as a waste treatment 
system provides an indication of waste treatment system status. 
As a corollary of sorts to the first factor listed above, for 
instance, increasing the capacity of a playa to accommodate 
waste treatment needs is a strong indication that the resulting 
surface water body is a waste treatment system, not a water 
of the U.S.
   d. Other waste treatment options. The existence of a proven, 
practical, and preferable alternative treatment method for the 
waste stream at issue militates against a finding that a surface 
water body is a waste treatment system. Disposal via deep injection 
well, for example, is a proven method commonly used by onshore 
oil and gas operators for complying with EPA effluent guidelines 
applicable to produced water. Hence, EPA would be unlikely to 
find a playa lake was an oil and gas operator's waste treatment 
system. In the case of a CAFO, however, surface retention basins 
may sometimes be the only treatment/disposal option available.
   e. Consistency with state law. Some states have adopted laws 
restricting or prohibiting the use of naturally occurring waters 
as waste treatment systems. If finding a water body is a waste 
treatment system is inconsistent with such laws, EPA Region 
6 will consider it a water of the U.S. A state law or decision 
to allow use of a natural water body as a waste treatment system 
is not, however, a determinative factor in an EPA decision on 
the same issue.
   f. Individual Section 404 permit. If the U.S. Army Corps 
of Engineers has issued a permit for the discharge of dredged 
or fill material to a playa lake incidental to a playa's use 
as a waste treatment system, EPA Region 6 will probably consider 
it a waste treatment system. The existence of a nationwide or 
general permit authorizing such work in a playa, however, will 
be given little if any weight because neither EPA nor state 
water quality agencies have an opportunity to consider individual 
waterbodies in connection with the issuance of such a permit.
   EPA reiterates that these factors are neither exclusive nor 
regulatory; they are simply examples of the sort of factors 
EPA will probably apply in making individual determinations. 
Their application in the context of an administrative or judicial 
enforcement action may thus be challenged in that enforcement 
action. In an effort to place permittees on notice that discharges 
to playas may be considered discharges to waters of the U.S., 
however, EPA has amended the proposed permits' references to 
"waters of the U.S." by adding exemplary language regarding 
rivers, streams, lakes, wetlands, and playa lakes.
   Even if a specific playa is clearly a waste treatment system, 
the operators of that system should make every effort to avoid 
damage to wildlife resources, such as migratory birds. Many 
migratory birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and/or 
the Endangered Species Act may frequent surface water bodies, 
regardless of their jurisdictional status under the Clean Water 
Act. Harming such protected birds by operating a treatment system 
may subject the operator to significant criminal liability under 
those laws.

D. Comments on Part III of the General Permit-Special Conditions, 
Management Practices, and Other Non-Numeric Limitations

   1. Many persons were concerned with the phrase "other than 
discharges associated with proper operation and maintenance 
of the CAFO" in Part III.A. Prohibitions. Several comments stated 
that pesticides should be considered as proper O&M, and that 
the dilution of pesticides in the ponds would render them harmless. 
The State of Texas asked if the disposal of "off spec" milk 
could be discharged to the retention structure.
   The Agency wishes to stress that the retention technology 
with the allowance to overflow in extreme rainfall conditions 
can only be applied to the wastes associated with the operation 
and maintenance of a concentrated animal feeding operation. 
The disposal of other wastes in the ponds would be a violation 
of the regulatory requirement. The authority for this requirement 
is established in 40 CFR 122.45(h). The disposal of "off spec" 
milk is a part of the operation and maintenance of a dairy facility. 
Also, the use of pesticides, cleansers, disinfectants are common 
and often necessary to the operation of any animal feeding operation. 
Region 6 cautions operators to use pesticides judiciously and 
in accordance with label requirements. Where appropriate the 
operator should limit the use of pesticides, and use those which 
are more readily degraded. This could limit pesticide impacts 
on the environment and limit the need to do expensive pesticide 
testing if the retention structure should need to discharge. 
Region 6 does not believe that the dilution of pesticides in 
the retention structures will render them harmless. Many pesticides 
are very toxic to fish and wildlife in the parts per trillion 
range and do not break down readily.
   Two examples of activities and wastes which are excluded 
by this provision are as follows: 1. The introduction of human 
wastewaters into the retention structure. The discharge and/or 
land application of materials that are potentially contaminated 
with human pathogens are covered by regulatory requirements 
in section 405 of the Clean Water Act. 2. The act of any operator 
to accept any outside waste (waste not generated at the CAFO) 
to be introduced into the retention structure.
   2. Several persons commented on the requirement to structurally 
restrict uncontaminated waters which may run on to the facility. 
Also many persons question the requirement for the facilities 
to be protected from flood if located in a floodplain. The Agency 
believes that unrestricted flow through the facility area would 
result in unnecessary and unplanned large volumes of water which 
would have to be retained. The Agency believes this practice 
would lead to frequent non-compliance. The Agency also believes 
that the protection from flood waters is consistent with the 
no discharge requirement for facilities which are located in 
floodplains. This provision applies to all waste management 
areas except the land application of wastes as an agricultural 
practice. Properly applied, animal wastes provide no more environmental 
risk than chemical fertilizers which would be used on the same 
land. 
   3. Several comments received concerned the placement of a 
waste retention facility near water wells. Many commenters requested 
EPA reword the requirement to clarify their intent. Several 
States requested that the distances reflect State health department 
standards. 
   EPA has clarified the Best Management Practice referring 
to the proximity of waste management facilities to water wells. 
(Part III.B.1.g.) It is EPA's responsibility to include any 
State requirement which would be more protective of public health 
in permitting actions. EPA agrees with States that these should 
be in accordance with the specific distances cited in the State's 
health codes, therefore, the best management practices restricting 
the placement of retention and waste handling facilities near 
public and private water wells has been changed to refer to 
the State's requirements.
   4. Many persons and producer groups, especially groups from 
States outside Region 6, question EPA's authority to protect 
ground water in an NPDES permit. Clean Water Act specifically 
refers to ground water in three sections, however it does not 
give clear authority to EPA to regulate ground water quality 
through NPDES permits. Where States have requirements to protect 
ground water, or specifically refer to them as waters of the 
State which are to be protected in an approved Water Quality 
Management Plan, EPA is fully within its authority to protect 
ground water quality. EPA is authorized by section 301 of the 
Act include any more stringent state treatment standard or requirement. 
Region 6 has not included requirements to specifically protect 
ground water quality. The permit does, however, protect the 
sources of surface water from the leakage of pollutants through 
the unlined retention structures. This requirement along with 
best management requirements for the proper waste handling and 
disposal will have the added environmental benefit of providing 
some ground water protection. The permit also includes provisions 
which relate to the protection of public health from the contamination 
of drinking water as reflected in State Standards. 
   For clarification all mention of ground water protection 
has been removed from the general permit.
   5. Many commenters objected to the requirement of recordkeeping 
in the general permit. Many people stated that it was too burdensome 
and that paperwork would not protect the environment. Several 
persons and producer groups supported some of the required recordkeeping. 
Specifically, logs of water levels, structural integrity inspections, 
and logs of manure removal from the facility. Several concerned 
citizens suggested that facilities should also keep records 
of all pesticide usage at the facility. Many persons stated 
the opinion that the recordkeeping requirements be eliminated 
and be replaced by annual or semi-annual inspections by EPA. 
Several Commenters believed that the inclusion of BMPs and the 
requirements in the Pollution Prevention Plan were beyond the 
scope of EPA's authority.
   EPA has simplified and clarified the recordkeeping requirements 
in the permit. The records required are those which facilities 
must have to show compliance with the national standards. Many 
of the record requirements are provided by the USDA Soil Conservation 
Service. Region 6 does not believe that the recordkeeping required 
to document all pesticide usage is necessary to protect water 
quality. The permit requires that the permittee use pesticides 
in accordance with label requirements. In this was the use has 
already been regulated by EPA. The permit also requires the 
permittee to sample all discharges to waters of the U.S. for 
any pesticide which may be present in the discharge.
   Region 6 regulates and permits close to 100,000 permittees. 
The staff required to do semi-annual inspections at every permitted 
facility in Region 6 would require a substantial increase to 
EPA's budget. This expenditure would have to be placed on the 
taxpayer in order to save the operators of facilities from the 
burden of their compliance recordkeeping. EPA does not agree 
that this is an appropriate use of tax dollars.
   The Clean Water Act gives EPA broad authority to develop 
permit conditions necessary to meet effluent guidelines and 
water quality standards. Specifically, sections 401(a) (1) and 
(2) of the Act give EPA authority to prescribe conditions for 
permits to assure compliance with applicable regulations. Further, 
EPA has the authority to impose Best Management Practices (BMPs) 
as permit conditions to ensure that technology-based effluent 
limitations are properly implemented in permits. Additionally, 
it is EPA's best professional judgement that the BMPs and pollution 
prevention requirements are needed in the permit to protect 
for water quality.
   Tracing EPA's statutory and regulatory authority to control 
wastewater discharges from CAFOs, federal regulations found 
at 40 CFR 122.44 state that NPDES permits must include technology-
based effluent limitations based on limitations promulgated 
under section 301 of the Clean Water Act. Effluent limitations 
have been imposed on CAFOs by federal regulations found at 40 
CFR part 412. The regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(k) state NPDES 
permit shall include Best Management Practices to control or 
abate the discharge of pollutants when numeric effluent limitations 
are infeasible or these practices are reasonably necessary to 
achieve effluent limitations and standards or to carry out the 
intent of the Clean Water Act. The regulations described for 
CAFOs at 40 CFR part 412 are not expressed as numeric limitations, 
and are clearly effluent limitations which can be implemented 
by the use of BMPs. EPA therefore believes that it has authority 
to require BMPs as a condition of the general CAFO permit and 
believes BMPs to be the appropriate vehicle for the protection 
of water quality.
   6. Many comments were received requesting a compliance schedule 
for the development of the plan and compliance with provisions. 
EPA agrees that the smaller facilities under the general permit 
will require more time to prepare a plan. Facilities under 1000 
animal units must be compliant with this provision as outlined 
in the schedule in Part III.B.2.a. of the final permit.
   7. Many comments received requested that the permit allow 
Soil Conservation Service animal waste management plans to replace 
the pollution prevention documentation. Other commenters request 
that documentation of compliance with the waste management provisions, 
retention structure design and construction, and liner determinations 
from the SCS be considered compliance with the pollution prevention 
requirements.
   The proposed permit contained language which allowed documentation 
under SCS plans to substitute for parts of the pollution prevention 
plan. The Agency has amended the permit to include more specific 
language (in Part III.B.2.) concerning the substitution of SCS 
documentation/decisions for the permit requirements.
   8. A few commenters questioned who would be considered "qualified 
personnel" for purposes of development of a Pollution Prevention 
Plan and responsibility for compliance with the provisions and 
recordkeeping. The owner or operator of the facility is responsible 
for designating this task to an employee, or doing it themselves. 
If the task is designated to a person other than the permittee, 
it is the permittees responsibility to determine the qualifications 
of the employee to understand and comply with the requirements. 
This person must be named in the plan.
   9. A few persons objected to the requirement that all sampling 
data be kept on site. Sampling data is part of the permit compliance 
record of the and must be kept at the facility. EPA does not 
believe this places any burden on the permittee and allows EPA 
to evaluate permit compliance.
   10. Most commenters were concerned with the requirement to 
have all of the necessary dewatering equipment "on site". The 
equipment is expensive and is often shared by several operators 
in close vicinity of one another. The commenters suggested the 
language be changed to say "available". Region 6 agrees that 
the requirement to have the equipment on site would be unnecessarily 
burdensome to small operations and is not necessary to proper 
operation and maintenance. The permit language has been changed 
to reflect the availability of the equipment. However, the permit 
now requires that the permittee document the availability of 
the equipment in the Pollution Prevention Plan.
   11. Several persons and State agencies commented that the 
information from the nearest weather station might not accurately 
reflect the rainfall at the facility. These comments suggest 
that a rain gauge should be kept on site and the rainfall from 
any measurable event be recorded and kept with the pollution 
prevention plan. EPA agrees with the comment and has included 
the requirement in the final permit.
   12. A few commenters asked if the requirement for erosion 
controls were necessary. These commenters believed this requirement 
would not result in further environmental protection. Increased 
sediment entering the pond structures could reduce the storage 
capacity and could result in noncompliance with the no discharge 
requirement.
   13. Several comments requested that existing facilities be 
"grandfathered" or exempted from structural requirements, liners, 
and construction specifications. EPA agrees with commenters 
that structures which exist and exhibit good maintenance and 
structural integrity should be exempt from the construction 
specifications. It is not EPA's intent that these facilities 
be reconstructed. However, documentation of appropriate retention 
capacity and liner assessment will be required by all facilities 
in accordance with the terms of the permit.
   14. Some comments requested that the requirement for grass 
or riprap to stabilize the walls of the retention structures, 
be changed to allow for other means of stabilization. The comments 
stated that in very cold or dry conditions grass would not survive 
and riprap was a very expensive alternative. The commenters 
stated that other methods could be used to prevent deterioration 
and that the Agency should allow for this flexibility.
   The Agency agrees with this position and has simply required 
that the structures be stabilized against erosion and deterioration.
   15. Several comments note that the design capacity must take 
into account the volume of wet manure, and suggests that this 
is too broad a statement. The commenters suggest that this be 
changed to the volume of manure which will enter the pond. It 
is the Agency's intent that only the volume of manure which 
will would reasonably be expected to enter the retention structure 
would have to be accounted for. The language in the final permit 
has been changed to reflect only the manure to be retained in 
the structure.
   16. Many comments questioned the requirement of liners to 
protect from hydrologic connection. Many commenters believed 
that this requirement was to protect ground water. Over most 
of EPA Region 6 surface water flow is sustained throughout much 
of the year by ground water inflow. As a result, contaminants 
which leak from containment structures to the ground water will 
typically move underground toward local streams and rivers where 
they will be discharged and affect water quality. EPA has included 
a liner requirement specifically where there is potential for 
pond leakage to impair surface waters. Region 6 strongly believes 
this is consistent with the effluent guideline requirement of 
a "no discharge" technology. It is EPA's position that a discharge 
through the bottom of the retention structure constitutes a 
violation of the required technology requirement if significant 
pollutants from that discharge reach a surface water. Also, 
see answer D.4.
   17. Several comments received requested clarification of 
hydrologic connection, and how this could be documented. Hydrologic 
connection refers to the interflow and exchange between surface 
water and ground water. In the context of this permit, the intent 
of the reduction of hydrologic connection is to reduce ground 
water as a flow path which would result in the transfer of pollutant 
materials from CAFO containment structures to surface waters. 
This definition has been included in the definition section 
of the CAFO general permit, Part VII. The conditions in the 
general permit have been simplified to allow a professional 
determination that hydrological connection does not occur to 
the degree that surface water contamination would result.
   18. Many comments requested that the "liner requirement" 
apply only to new facilities. The commenters state that these 
facilities have a "biological seal" which prevents leakage. 
These persons note studies by Texas A&M which show facilities 
which are properly maintained seldom leak. EPA agrees that the 
process of plugging and gleisation may provide appropriate sealing 
of a pond under certain conditions, however, the permit requires 
the permittee to have specific documentation on site that a 
liner is not necessary.
   19. Many commenters request that the hydraulic conductivity 
and thickness requirements (1*10-7, and 1.5 feet) in the permit 
language change to be consistent with the Soil Conservation 
Service technical standards for liner construction. EPA agrees 
with the commenters that the technical determinations made by 
the SCS or by another professional using SCS Technical Notes 
716 and 717 (or the current equivalent technical criteria) would 
protect for hydrologic connection. These determinations take 
into account the site specific variables. Additionally, a professional 
will not design the facility in structurally unstable area or 
on unstable soils. Where site specific conditions are not assessed 
by a professional, EPA believes that the more conservative requirement 
of 1.5 feet of material compacted to 1*10-7 hydraulic conductivity 
(or its equivalent in an alternate material) is appropriate.
   20. Many comments were made on the liner maintenance requirements 
of liner inspection and monitoring wells. The commenters included 
many State and Federal agricultural agencies as well as State 
water quality professionals. The Agency has reevaluated its 
proposed requirements of liner inspections and monitoring wells. 
EPA agrees with the agricultural professional that liner inspections 
would result in structural and biological damage to the liners. 
This requirement has been removed from the final permit. EPA 
also agrees with the water quality professionals that the indiscriminate 
drilling of monitoring wells for every facility could result 
in the contamination of ground water and drinking water aquifers. 
EPA also recognizes the States' concern that specific facilities 
may have the potential to leak and contaminate State waters. 
The final permit requires only those facilities which have been 
notified by the State or the Director to install monitoring 
wells to check for liner integrity.
   21. Many commenters were concerned with the concept of agronomic 
rates, and the requirement that manures and wastewaters must 
be land applied at rates which consider the nutrient crop uptake. 
Many comments suggest that the land application be limited to 
available nitrogen. Many commenters requested a definition of 
"agronomic rates". Several persons noted the "slow release" 
nature of manure and requested that we take this into account. 
EPA agrees with the commenters that plant needs define agronomic 
rates. It is not EPA's intent to prescribe the specifics of 
agricultural use of wastes, but to insure that the rates used 
are consistent with EPA water quality goals and good agricultural 
practices. Where agricultural practices include high application 
rates of phosphorus near water bodies which are phosphorus impaired, 
it is EPA's intent that appropriate cultural practices be used 
to limit the potential runoff of nutrients.
   22. Many commenters stated that manure was more environmentally 
safe than chemical fertilizers. However, some commenters believed 
the manure and waste products should be tested for nutrient 
content. Many comments stated that manure records should be 
kept in whatever unit of measure the farmer wanted. One commenter 
asked if weigh tickets would be required with the log of manure 
hauled away. EPA agrees that, properly used, manure is a more 
environmentally favorable fertilizer source than chemical fertilizers. 
However, it has been the finding that the improper or over application 
of animal wastes has impaired watersheds in each of the Region's 
States. EPA believes the removal of large quantities of wastes 
should be logged only (no weigh tickets are required by the 
permit). The permit has been changed to allow other appropriate 
units of measure.
   Where the manure is analyzed, this information will be made 
available to the hauler. EPA will not require that manures and 
wastes be analyzed, however, the permittee must use appropriate 
information about the nutrient content of the wastes to determine 
and document land application rates at the facility.
   23. Many persons objected to the requirement that stock piles 
of manure or land disposal sites would have to be protected 
from flooding if placed in the 100 year floodplain; and manure 
was not to be stockpiled near water courses. Many persons believed 
this restricted the ability of the operator to compost the manures 
to be used on the field.
   Region 6 believes that these requirements are consistent 
with the no discharge requirement of the national standard. 
Significant amounts of manure, placed in floodplains and near 
water courses, could be discharged during rainfall or high water 
events. The permit requires the permittee protect against such 
occurrences. Region 6 does not believe this will substantially 
impair the permittees ability to compost wastes at the facility. 
The permittee can compost manures in locations away from water 
courses and transport the composted manure to the field when 
it is to be land applied.
   24. Many concerned persons criticized EPA for not including 
adequate odor controls in the general permit. EPA's authority 
under the Clean Water Act does not extend to odor control at 
these facilities. Region 6 believes that the requirements in 
the permit do require the best management of the waste products 
from such facilities, and therefore, will reduce to the maximum 
extent possible problems which result in excessive odors.
   25. Several commenters believed the permit should include 
requirements for "closure" of a facility. These citizens believe 
that these facilities constitute an extremely mobile industry 
and that when environmental regulations tighten, these facilities 
move to new locations leaving significant wastes behind exposed 
to runoff.
   EPA has no specific authority to regulate the closure of 
these facilities. However, it should be noted, and the regulated 
community should be aware that CAFO facilities with over 1000 
animal units are considered to "have storm water discharges 
associated with industry activity". In accordance with regulations 
published in the Federal Register on November 16, 1990 (55 FR 
47990 Definition 14) all facilities or inactive sites where 
significant materials remain exposed to storm water must have 
a NPDES storm water permit. Therefore, sites vacated by large 
CAFO facilities will be required to remain permitted until all 
significant materials are removed.

E. Comments on Part IV of the General Permit-Monitoring and 
Reporting Requirements

   A range of comments were received on the requirement for 
discharges and overflows from the retention structures to be 
sampled and analyzed. Some commenters rejected the need for 
any sampling, many provided information or stated opinions on 
which parameters should be analyzed, but most commenters questioned 
the need to test for fecal coliform bacteria. The U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service suggested the discharges be analyzed for 
metals, pesticide, hormone and antibiotic contamination. The 
Service also requested that permittees be required to do instream 
studies to determine if these contaminants were being released.
   EPA agrees that the full scope of sampling may not be necessary 
to track the detrimental effects of a discharge. Additionally, 
review of State water quality inventories and information from 
water quality experts indicates that chronic eutrophication 
in watersheds is related to the improper or over application 
of wastes and not to the discharge from a properly operated 
facility. For this reason, Region 6 has included only those 
chemical parameters which are likely to produce acute effects 
as the result of a discharge. EPA is also concerned with the 
protection of human health which relates to the fecal bacteria 
discharged into the surface water. The parameters which must 
be analyzed are BOD, TSS, ammonia nitrogen, fecal coliform bacteria, 
and any pesticide that could reasonably be in the discharge.
   EPA must develop permit conditions which satisfy the intent 
of the Clean Water Act. As described in 40 CFR 122.48, EPA shall 
specify reporting requirements in permits which are based upon 
the impact of the regulated activity. Fecal coliforms, excreted 
in mammalian feces, are clearly a parameter pertinent and applicable 
to the "activity" of a confined animal feeding operation.
   EPA has included many of the permit requirements suggested 
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Region 6 agrees with 
Fish and Wildlife that immediate notification will allow the 
Agency the option to study the impacts of discharges. However, 
the data which the Service has collected are specific to geographic 
area and relate to pond sediments (mostly from historical waste 
management). Where this data may indicate that there are metals 
present in sediments of particular retention systems, EPA does 
not believe the body of data which exists at this present time 
indicates the potential for discharge of significant amount 
of metals from these facilities under rainfall conditions. EPA 
is unaware of any approved method to test for hormones or antibiotics 
in wastewaters. Region 6 believes further data could be gathered 
in the next five years. If this data indicated metals in discharges 
from CAFO facilities, EPA can address metals in this permit 
when it is reissued. The permit already requires that permittees 
analyze the sample for pesticides which may be in the discharge.

F. Comments on Part V of the General Permit-Standard Permit 
Requirements

   Many persons remarked that several requirements in this part 
of the permit related to industrial dischargers and do not relate 
to CAFOs, and these items should be deleted from the final permit 
to avoid confusion. The Agency agrees with the commenters that 
much of the standard permitting language is directed at activities 
not found at a CAFO. Therefore, Region 6 has removed those sections 
of the standard permitting language which do not pertain to 
CAFOs. Items for Anticipated Noncompliance, Other Noncompliance 
Reporting, Bypass of Treatment Facilities, and Upset Conditions 
have been removed from Part IV. Items regarding Toxic Pollutants 
and Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability have been removed 
from Part V.

G. Comments on Part VI of the General Permit-Reopener Clause

   The Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 
requested that the Agency include in the Reopener that the Agency 
would undergo a consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife if 
the permit is reopened. EPA is required to work with other regulatory 
agencies and often consult on permitting actions. It is not 
necessary to notify the permittee of all administrative activities 
which are undertaken when permits are reopened, only the reason 
the permit may be reopened. Therefore this will not be included 
in the final permit.

H. Comments on Part VII of the General Permit-Definitions

   Many requests were received by EPA on words, term and phrases 
which the public requested defined or clarified. The Agency 
has provided clarifications in this responsiveness summary in 
the responses to comments for that particular section of the 
permit where the term was used. In addition, EPA has included 
several definitions to the final general permit. These are: 
"Agronomic Rates", "Best Available Technology" (BAT), "Best 
Conventional Technology" (BCT), "Hydrologic connection", "Process 
wastewater", "Qualified groundwater scientist".
   Several persons point out that the term 10-year, 24-hour 
storm event is never mentioned in the general permit. This term 
has been deleted from the final general permit.

I. Comments on the Appendices of the General Permit

   Most of the persons commenting on the general permit were 
opposed to the "Recommended Best Management Practices", manure 
nutrient information, and crop nutrient information that was 
published with the proposed permit. Many persons believed that 
more user-friendly and up-to-date information was available 
through State and Federal agencies which work with the agricultural 
community.
   EPA agrees with the commenters and has removed such information 
from the final permit. The Agency has replaced it with listings 
of information sources and agencies to assist operators in the 
proper operation and management of CAFO facilities, and a listing 
of publications which were submitted by State and Federal agencies.

Part III. Economic Impact

   EPA believes that this general permit will be economically 
beneficial to the regulated community, in that it provides an 
economic alternative to the individual application process the 
facilities covered by this permit would otherwise have to face. 
The requirements are consistent with those already imposed by 
effective Federal regulations and State requirements.
   An economic analysis was done when the BAT requirements for 
the national effluent guidelines (40 CFR part 412) were published. 
Region 6 believes that the same economic and technology rationale 
would apply to the smaller facilities covered by this permit. 
Also, Region 6 believes that this permit is the most economical 
permitting option available to the smaller facilities with NPDES 
application requirements. Region 6 has also provided a comparison 
analysis in the Responsiveness Summary to show the applicability 
of the 1974 analysis.
   If, however, any smaller facilities believe that this economic 
analysis for the guidelines containment technology would not 
apply to their facility and that they would be able to achieve 
necessary water quality requirements of the receiving stream, 
through the use of biological or equivalent treatment systems, 
those smaller facilities may apply for individual permit coverage.

Part IV. Compliance With Other Federal Regulations


A. National Environmental Policy Act


Finding of No Significant Impact

   To All Interested Government Agencies and Public Groups: 
Pursuant to the requirements of section 511(c) of the Clean 
Water Act and the environmental review procedures of the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at 40 CFR part 6, "Procedures 
for Implementing the Requirements of the Council on Environmental 
Quality on the National Environmental Policy Act" for the National 
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) New Source Program, 
the EPA has conducted a general environmental review of the 
following action:
   1. Action. Issuance of General NPDES Permit for New Source 
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO), defined in 40 
CFR part 122 appendix B and 40 CFR part 412, and located in 
all parts of the State. The discharge of process wastewater 
from these facilities is subject to the requirements of 40 CFR 
122.23 and 40 CFR part 412, and to the application of the new 
source performance standards promulgated on February 14, 1974, 
under the NPDES permit program.
   2. Environmental Effects Generally Associated with CAFOs. 
A summary of the potential impacts from CAFOs on the environment 
and the mitigating affects of the permit requirements were published 
with the proposed permit (57 FR 32475).
   3. Finding. On the basis of an additional review of the impacts 
commonly associated with CAFO operations, information and comments 
received during the public comment period, and other available 
information, the EPA has made a final decision that the issuance 
of the General NPDES Permit will not result in any significant 
adverse environmental impacts and that an Environmental Impact 
Statement (EIS) is not required. This Finding of No Significant 
Impact (FNSI) covers CAFO facilities in place and operating 
at the time of issuance of the General Permit. Applicants for 
CAFO facilities proposed after the issuance of the General Permit 
shall submit an appropriate EID and undergo environmental review 
prior to the start of construction. Comments regarding this 
decision not to prepare an EIS are discussed in the attached 
Responsiveness Summary.
   New CAFO subject to National Effluent Guidelines (40 CFR 
Part 412) will be required to complete an Environmental Review 
with the Agency prior to coverage under the permit. New facilities 
are any CAFO not in operation as of the issuance date of these 
general permits. These facilities, prior to construction must 
complete an environmental review with this Agency. The initial 
form to start the process of an environmental review has been 
provided in appendix C of the permit. The permittee must have 
documentation of "No Significant Impact" or a completed Environmental 
Impact Statement, in accordance with an environmental review 
conducted by the Agency, as a condition of coverage under the 
permit. This documentation must be retained on site.

B. Endangered Species Act

   The final permits published today will authorize no discharge 
other than upsets and bypasses, which are relatively infrequent 
occurrences. Accordingly, EPA Region 6 determines that issuance 
of these permits is unlikely to adversely affect any listed 
threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat. 
EPA Region 6 has submitted copies of these permits to the U.S. 
Fish & Wildlife Service. EPA Region 6 consulted the U.S. Fish 
& Wildlife Service regarding this determination. EPA has addressed 
all of U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service concerns. Part I of this 
document outlines changes which were made to the final permit. 
The Responsiveness Summary in Part II explains the Agency's 
final permitting decisions with respect to the concerns raised 
by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.

C. Executive Order 12291

   The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action 
from the review requirements of Executive Order 12291 pursuant 
to section 8(b) of that order.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

   EPA has reviewed the requirements imposed on regulated facilities 
in this general permit under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 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 submissions made for the NPDES permit program 
under provisions of the Clean Water Act.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

   Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 
EPA is required to prepare a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
to assess the impact of rules on small entities. No Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis is required, however, where the head of 
the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
   Today's general permit would generally make the NPDES regulations 
more flexible and less burdensome for permittees. This permit 
does not apply to small animal feeding operations unless specifically 
designated by the Director. Accordingly, I hereby certify, pursuant 
to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that these amendments, if promulgated, and 
that these general permits, when issued, will not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.

   Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

   Dated: January 5, 1993.

B.J. Wynne,
Regional Administrator.

Authorization to Discharge Under the National Pollutant Discharge 
Elimination System for Storm Water Discharges From Concentrated 
Animal Feeding Operations in the State of Louisiana

[General Permit No.: LAG010000]
   In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act, 
33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., as amended by the Water Quality Act 
of 1987, Public Law 100-4, the "Act".
   Owners and operators of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations 
except those sites excluded from coverage in Part I of this 
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 concentrated animal feeding operations.
   This permit will become effective on March 10, 1993.
   This permit and the authorization to discharge under the 
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System shall expire 
at midnight, on March 10, 1998.

   Signed this fifth day of January, 1993.

Myron O. Knudson, P.E.,
Water Management Director, Region 6.

Authorization to Discharge Under the National Pollutant Discharge 
Elimination System for Storm Water Discharges From Concentrated 
Animal Feeding Operations in the State of New Mexico

[General Permit No.: NMG010000]
   In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act, 
33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., as amended by the Water Quality Act 
of 1987, Public Law 100-4, the "Act".
   Owners and operators of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations 
except those sites excluded from coverage in Part I of this 
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 concentrated animal feeding operations.
   This permit will become effective on March 10, 1993.
   This permit and the authorization to discharge under the 
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System shall expire 
at midnight, on March 10, 1998.

   Signed this fifth day of January, 1993.

Myron O. Knudson, P.E.,
Water Management Director, Region 6.

Authorization to Discharge Under the National Pollutant Discharge 
Elimination System for Storm Water Discharges From Concentrated 
Animal Feeding Operations in the State of Oklahoma

[General Permit No.: OKG010000]
   In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act, 
33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., as amended by the Water Quality Act 
of 1987, Public Law 100-4, the "Act."
   Owners and operators of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations 
except those sites excluded from coverage in Part I of this 
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 concentrated animal feeding operations.
   This permit will become effective on March 10, 1993.
   This permit and the authorization to discharge under the 
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System shall expire 
at midnight, on March 10, 1998.

   Signed this fifth day of January, 1993.

Myron O. Knudson, P.E.,
Water Management Director, Region 6.

Authorization to Discharge Under the National Pollutant Discharge 
Elimination System for Storm Water Discharges From Concentrated 
Animal Feeding Operations in the State of Texas.

[General Permit No.: TXG010000]
   In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act, 
33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., as amended by the Water Quality Act 
of 1987, Public Law 100-4, the "Act".
   Owners and operators of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations 
except those sites excluded from coverage in Part I of this 
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 concentrated animal feeding operations.
   This permit will become effective on March 10, 1993.
   This permit and the authorization to discharge under the 
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System shall expire 
at midnight, on March 10, 1998.

   Signed this fifth day of January, 1993.

Myron O. Knudson, P.E.,
Water Management Director, Region 6.

NPDES General Permit for Discharges From Concentrated Animal 
Feeding Operations 

Table of Contents 

Part I. Coverage Under This Permit 
A. Permit Area. 
B. Coverage and Eligibility. 
C. Limitations on Coverage. 
D. Requiring an individual permit or an alternative general 
    permit. 
E. Notification Requirements. 
F. Permit Expiration. 

Part II. Effluent Limitations
A. Discharge Limitations For All Categories Of CAFOs Other Than 
    Ducks Facilities Established Prior to 1974. 
B. Releases in Excess of the 25 year, 24-hour Storm Event. 

Part III. Special Conditions, Management Practices, and Other 
Non-Numeric Limitations.
A. Prohibition on Unauthorized Substances. 
B. Proper Operation and Maintenance Requirements. 

Part IV. Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
A. Discharge Notification. 
B. Written Notification. 
C. Penalties for Falsification of Reports. 
D. Retention of Records. 
E. Availability of Reports. 
F. Planned Changes. 
G. Duty to Provide Information. 
H. Other Information. 
I. Signatory Requirements.

Part V. Standard Permit Requirements
A. Duty to Comply. 
B. Inspection and Entry. 
C. Toxic Pollutants. 
D. Penalties for Violation of Permit Conditions. 
E. Continuation of the Expired General Permit. 
F. Need to Halt or Reduce Activity not a Defense. 
G. Duty to Mitigate. 
H. Proper Operation and Maintenance. 
I. Penalties for Falsification of Monitoring Systems and Reports. 
J. Property Rights. 
K. Severability. 
L. State Laws. 
M. Permit Actions. 

Part VI. Reopener Clause 

Part VII. Definitions

Part I. Coverage Under This Permit 


A. Permit Area 

   The permit covers all areas administered by Region 6 in the 
States of Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas. 

B. Coverage and Eligibility 

   Unless excluded from coverage in accordance with paragraph 
C or D below, owners or operators of animal feeding operations 
that are defined in 40 CFR part 122 appendix B as concentrated 
animal feeding operations, and are subject to the requirements 
40 CFR 122.23 are eligible for coverage under this permit. 
   1. Existing Facilities. Owners or operators of existing Concentrated 
Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) are authorized under the terms 
and conditions of this permit upon the submittal of a Notice 
of Intent (NOI){1} to gain coverage under this permit. Permittees 
must retain on site a copy of the permit and the pollution prevention 
plan as required by this permit. 
      ³{1} The Notice of Intent Form is included in this permit 
      ³as appendix B. 
   2. CAFOs With Expired Permits or Pending Applications. Upon 
the submittal of a Notice of Intent1  all facilities which 
have expired permits and have reapplied in accordance with 40 
CFR 122.21(d); and all facilities which have submitted applications 
in accordance with 40 CFR 122.21(a) are automatically covered 
by the terms of this permit. A permittee may request to be excluded 
from coverage by this permit by applying for an individual permit 
in accordance with 40 CFR 122.28(b)(3)(iii).  
   3. New Facilities. Owners or operators of new Concentrated 
Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) are authorized under the terms 
and conditions of this permit upon the submittal of a Notice 
of Intent1  to gain coverage under this permit. The owner or 
operator of a new CAFOs must submit a Notice of Intent five 
(5) business days prior to any discharge from the Concentrated 
Animal Feeding Operation. Permittees must retain on site a copy 
of the permit and the pollution prevention plan as required 
by this permit. Additional requirements for new facilities are 
as follows:
   a. Requirements for New CAFOs with more than the number of 
animals specified in 40 CFR part 122 appendix B(a){2} (or definition 
7.a. of this permit). New Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation 
facilities subject to National Effluent Guidelines (40 CFR part 
412) shall, prior to constructing, complete the form provided 
in appendix C of this permit. The form must be sent to: Mr. 
Hector Pena (6E-FF), U.S. EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Ave., Suite 
1200, Dallas, Texas 75202.
      ³{2} The provisions in Part I.B.3.&4. are requirements 
      ³of Federal programs under the National Environmental 
      ³Policy Act of 1969 and will not apply to such facilities 
      ³once authority for the NPDES program has been assumed 
      ³by the state agency.
   b. The permittee shall have documentation of "No Significant 
Impact" or a completed Environmental Impact Statement, in accordance 
with an environmental review conducted by this Agency, as a 
condition of coverage under this permit. This documentation 
shall be obtained and retained on site prior to the submittal 
of the Notice of Intent.
   4. Expanding Facilities.2  Facilities intending to expand 
operations to more than the number of animals specified in 40 
CFR part 122 appendix B(a) (or definition 7.a. of this permit) 
will be subject to 40 CFR part 412 and will be required, prior 
to construction of the expansion, to submit a new notice of 
intent and to complete the form provided in appendix C of this 
permit. The form must be sent to the address in paragraph I.B.3.a 
(above). The permitteee shall have documentation of "No Significant 
Impact" or a Completed Environmental Impact Statement, in accordance 
with an environment review conducted by this Agency, as a condition 
of coverage under this permit. This documentation shall be obtained 
and retained on site prior to the submittal of the notice of 
intent.
   5. Other Animal Feeding Operations. All other animal feeding 
operation are encouraged to comply with the terms and conditions 
of this permit.

C. Limitations on Coverage

   The following discharges from Concentrated Animal Feeding 
Operations (CAFOs) are not covered by this permit:
   1. Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations that the Director 
has determined to be or may reasonably be expected to be contributing 
to a violation of a water quality standard, and which have been 
notified by the Director to file for an individual or alternative 
general permit in accordance with part I.D (below) of this permit.
   2. Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations which adversely 
affects a listed or proposed to be listed endangered or threatened 
species or its critical habitat.
   3. Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations which adversely 
affects properties listed or eligible for listing in the National 
Register of Historic Places.
   4. Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations that discharge 
all their runoff and wastewater to a publicly owned sanitary 
sewer system which discharges in accordance with an NPDES permit.
   5. Concentrated Duck feeding operations established prior 
to 1974.

D. Requiring an Individual Permit or an Alternative General 
Permit

   1. The Director may require any person authorized by this 
permit to apply for and obtain either an individual NPDES permit 
or an alternative NPDES general permit as provided in 40 CFR 
122.28(b)(2)(i). The Director will notify the owner or operator 
in writing that a permit application is required. If an owner 
or operator fails to submit in a timely manner an individual 
NPDES permit application required by the Director, then the 
applicability of the general permit to the individual NPDES 
permittee is automatically terminated at the end of the day 
specified for application submittal.
   2. Any owner or operator authorized by this permit may request 
to be excluded from the coverage of this permit by applying 
for an individual permit as provided in 40 CFR 122.28(b)(2)(iii). 
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 subject to this permit, or the owner or 
operator is approved for coverage under an alternative NPDES 
general permit, the applicability of this permit to the facility 
is automatically terminated on the effective date of the individual 
permit or on the date of approval for coverage under the alternative 
general permit. When an individual NPDES permit is denied to 
an owner or operator otherwise subject to this permit, or the 
owner or operator is denied for coverage under an alternative 
NPDES general permit, the permittee is automatically reinstated 
under this permit on the date of such denial, unless otherwise 
specified by the Director.

E. Notification Requirements

   1. Owners or operators of facilities authorized by this permit 
shall submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to be covered to the Director. 
The form for the Notice of Intent for this permit is in appendix 
B of this permit. Notifications must be made within 90 days 
of issuance of this permit or upon completion of new facility. 
The Notice of Intent Form (or photocopy thereof) shall be signed 
by the owner or other signatory authority in accordance with 
Part VI.I. (Signatory Requirements), and a copy shall be retained 
on site in accordance with Part VI.D. (Retention of Records) 
of this permit. The address for Notice of Intent submission 
to EPA is:

   U.S. EPA Region 6,
   6W-EA General Permits, 
   P.O. Box 50625,
   Dallas, Texas 75270.

   2. A copy of the Notice of Intent must also be sent to the 
state agency where the Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation 
is located:
Louisiana: Gary Aydell, Administrator, Water Pollution Control 
  Division, State of Louisiana, Dept. of Environmental Quality, 
  P.O. Box 82215, Baton Rouge, LA. 70884-2215
Texas: Texas Water Commission, Agriculture Department, P.O. 
  Box 13087, Austin, TX. 78711-3087
Oklahoma: State of Oklahoma, Department of Agriculture, 2800 
  N. Lincoln Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK. 73105-4298
New Mexico: Chief, Water Quality Bureau, New Mexico Environmental 
  Department, 1190 St. Francis Blvd., P.O. Box 26110, Santa 
  Fe, NM. 87502

F. Permit Expiration

   Coverage under this permit will expire five (5) years from 
the date of issuance. The conditions of an expired permit continues 
in force until the effective date of a new permit (40 CFR 122.6).

Part II. Effluent Limitations


A. Discharge Limitations For All Categories Other Than Duck 
Facilities Established Prior to 1974

   1. The following limitations establish the quantity or quality 
of pollutants or pollutant properties which may be discharged 
by a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation in compliance with 
this permit after application of the best available technology 
economically achievable or new source performance standards: 
There shall be no discharge of process waste water pollutants 
to waters of the U.S. (including lakes, rivers, streams, wetlands 
and playa lakes as defined in 40 CFR 122.2) except in accordance 
with Part II.B of this permit.
   2. Limitations established for concentrated duck feeding 
operations which began operations after the establishment of 
New Source Performance Standards in 1974 are subject to the 
new source performance standard: There shall be no discharge 
of process waste water pollutants to waters of the U.S. (including 
streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands, and playa lakes as defined 
in 40 CFR 122.2) except as specified in Part II.B. of this permit.

B. Releases in Excess of the 25 year, 24-hr Storm Event

   Process waste pollutants in the overflow may be discharged 
to waters of the U.S. whenever rainfall events, either chronic 
or catastrophic, cause an overflow of process waste water from 
a facility designed, constructed and operated to contain all 
process generated waste waters plus the runoff from a 25-year, 
24-hour rainfall event for the location of the point source. 
There shall be no effluent limitations on discharges from detention 
structures constructed and maintained to contain the 25 year, 
24 hour storm event if the discharge is the result of a rainfall 
event which exceeds the design capacity and proper maintenance. 
Retention structures shall contain all process wastewaters plus 
the 25 year, 24 hour storm event.

Part III. Special Conditions, Management Practices, and Other 
Non-Numeric Limitations


A. Prohibition on Unauthorized Substances

   All discharges to containment structures shall be composed 
entirely of wastewaters from the proper operation and maintenance 
of a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation and the precipitation 
from the animal feeding operation areas. The disposal of any 
materials (other than discharges associated with proper operation 
and maintenance of the CAFO) into the containment structures 
are prohibited by this permit.

B. Proper Operation and Maintenance Requirements

   The facilities covered by this permit are required to document 
the attainment of Best Available Technology (BAT) and Best Conventional 
Technology (BCT), and all Best Management Practices (BMPs) used 
to comply with the effluent limitations in this permit. Such 
documentation shall be included in the Pollution Prevention 
Plan (PPP) outlined in Part III.B.2. of this permit and shall 
be made available to the Director upon request. Where applicable, 
equivalent measures contained in a site specific Animal Waste 
Management Plan prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
Soil Conservation Service (SCS), may be substituted for the 
Best Management Practices and Pollution Prevention Plan requirements 
in this Part of the permit. Where provisions in the Soil Conservation 
Service plan are substituted for applicable Best Management 
Practices or portions of the Pollution Prevention Plan, the 
Pollution Prevention Plan must refer to the appropriate section 
of the Soil Conservation Service plan. If the pollution prevention 
plan contains reference to the Soil Conservation Service plan, 
a copy of the Soil Conservation Service plan must be kept on 
site.
   1. Best Management Practices. The following Best Management 
Practices (BMPs) shall be utilized by concentrated animal feeding 
operations owners/operators, as appropriate, based upon existing 
physical and economic conditions, opportunities and constraints. 
Where the provisions in a Soil Conservation Service plan are 
equivalent or more protective the permittee may refer to the 
Soil Conservation Service plan as documentation of compliance 
with the Best Management Practices required by this permit.
   a. Control facilities must be designed, constructed, and 
operated to contain all process generated wastewaters and the 
contaminated runoff from a 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event for 
the location of the point source. Calculations may also include 
allowances for surface retention, infiltration, and other site 
specific factors. Waste control facilities must be constructed, 
maintained and managed so as to retain all contaminated rainfall 
runoff from open lots and associated areas, process generated 
wastewater, and all other wastes which will enter or be stored 
in the retention structure.
   b. Facilities shall not expand operations, either in size 
or numbers of animals, prior to amending or enlarging the waste 
handling procedures and structures to accommodate any additional 
wastes that will be generated by the expanded operations.
   c. Open lots and associated wastes shall be isolated from 
outside surface drainage by ditches, dikes, berms, terraces 
or other such structures designed to carry peak flows expected 
at times when the 25 year, 24-hr. rainfall event occurs.
   d. New facilities shall not be built in a water of the U.S. 
(including streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands, and playa lakes 
as defined in 40 CFR 122.2).
   e. No waters of the U.S. shall come into direct contact with 
the animals confined on the Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation. 
Fences may be used to restrict such access.
   f. Wastewater retention facilities or holding pens may not 
be located in the 100-year flood plain unless the facility is 
protected from inundation and damage that may occur during that 
flood event.
   g. There shall be no water quality impairment to public and 
neighboring private drinking water wells due to waste handling 
at the permitted facility. Facility wastewater retention facilities, 
holding pens or waste/wastewater disposal sites shall not be 
located closer to public or private water wells than the distances 
specified by State regulations or health codes or State issued 
permits for that facility.
   h. Waste handling, treatment, and management shall not result 
in the destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat 
of endangered or threatened species, or contribute to the taking 
of endangered or threatened species of plant, fish or wildlife.
   i. Waste handling, treatment, and management shall not create 
an environmental or a public health hazard; shall not result 
in the contamination of drinking water; shall conform with State 
guidelines and/or regulations for the protection of surface 
water quality.
   j. Solids, sludges, manure, or other pollutants removed in 
the course of treatment or control of wastewaters shall be disposed 
of in a manner such as to prevent significant pollutants from 
being discharged to waters of the United States.
   k. The operator shall prevent the discharge of pesticide 
contaminated waters into waters of the United States 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 significant pollutants from entering 
the waters of the United States.
   l. Dead animals shall be properly disposed of within three 
(3) days unless otherwise provided for by the Director. Animals 
shall be disposed of in a manner to prevent contamination of 
surface waters of the United States or create a public health 
hazard.
   m. Collection, storage, and disposal of liquid and solid 
waste should be managed in accordance with recognized practices 
of good agricultural management. The economic benefits derived 
from agricultural operations carried out at the land disposal 
site shall be secondary to the proper disposal of waste and 
wastewater.
   n. Appropriate measures necessary to prevent spills and to 
clean up spills of any toxic pollutant shall be taken. Where 
potential spills can occur materials handling procedures and 
storage shall be specified. Procedures for cleaning up spills 
shall be identified and the necessary equipment to implement 
a cleanup shall be available to personnel.
   o. Special requirements for discharges through municipal 
separate storm sewer systems serving a population of 100,000 
or more. Facilities discharging through a municipal separate 
storm system serving a population of 100,000 population or more 
shall comply with applicable requirements in the municipality's 
storm water management program. Concentrated Animal Feeding 
Operation facilities must comply with the requirements in the 
municipal storm water management program developed under an 
NPDES permit issued for the discharge of the municipal separate 
storm sewer system that receives the CAFO facility's discharge, 
provided the operator of the CAFO has been notified of such 
conditions.
   2. Pollution Prevention Plans. A pollution prevention plan 
shall be developed for each facility covered by this permit. 
Pollution prevention plans shall be prepared in accordance with 
good engineering practices and should include measures necessary 
to limit pollutants in runoff. The plan shall describe and ensure 
the implementation of practices which are to be used to assure 
compliance with the limitations and conditions of this permit. 
The plan shall identify a specific individual(s) at the facility 
who is responsible for developing the implementation, maintenance, 
and revision of the pollution prevention plan. The activities 
and responsibilities of the pollution prevention personnel should 
address all aspects of the facility's pollution prevention plan.
   a. Where a Soil Conservation Service plan{3} has been prepared 
for the facility, the pollution prevention plan may refer to 
the Soil Conservation Service plan when the Soil Conservation 
Service plan documentation contains equivalent requirements 
for the facility. When the permittee uses a Soil Conservation 
Service plan as partial completion of the pollution plan, the 
Soil Conservation Service plan must be kept on site. Design 
and construction criteria developed by the Soil Conservation 
Service can be substituted for the documentation of design capacity 
and construction requirements Part III D.2.f. of the Pollution 
Prevention Plan provided the required inspection logs and water 
level logs (sections f(2)(A) and f(2)(D) respectively) are kept 
with the Soil Conservation Service plan. Waste management plans 
developed by the Soil Conservation Service can be substituted 
for the documentation of application rate calculations in sections 
f(2) (H) and (I).
      ³{3} SCS Waste Management Plans which have been prepared 
      ³since January 1, 1989 are considered by the Soil Conservation 
      ³Service to contain adequate management practices. To 
      ³insure the protection of water quality, the Soil Conservation 
      ³Service has determined that SCS plans prepared prior 
      ³to 1989 must be renewed with the Soil Conservation Service 
      ³or waste management professional before December 1995. 
      ³SCS has determined that all plans should be reviewed 
      ³every five (5) years to insure proper management of wastes.
   b. Unless otherwise directed by the permitting authority: 
Large facilities (those with 1000 animal units or more) shall 
have on site and implement a Pollution Prevention Plan or its 
equivalent within 365 days (1 year) of the issuance date of 
this permit. Medium facilities (those with less than 1000 animal 
units but with 300 or more) shall have on site and implement 
a Pollution Prevention Plan or its equivalent within two (2) 
years of the issuance date of this permit. Small facilities 
(those under 300 animal units which have been designated by 
the Director as a point source) shall have on site and implement 
a Pollution Prevention Plan or its equivalent within three (3) 
years of the designation by the Director. New facilities shall 
have and implement a Pollution Prevention Plan or its equivalent 
prior to the submission of a Notice of Intent to be covered 
by this permit.
   c. The plan shall be signed by the owner or other signatory 
authority in accordance with part IV.I. (Signatory Requirements), 
and be retained on site in accordance with part IV.D. (Retention 
of Records) of this permit. The plan shall be updated as appropriate.
   d. If the plan is reviewed by the Director, or authorized 
representative, the Director, or authorized representative, 
may notify the permittee at any time that the plan does not 
meet one or more of the minimum requirements of this part. After 
such notification from the Director, or authorized representative, 
the permittee shall make changes to the plan within 90 days 
after such notification unless otherwise provided by the Director.
   e. The permittee shall amend the plan prior to any change 
in design, construction, operation, or maintenance, which has 
a significant effect on the potential for the discharge of pollutants 
to the waters of the United States or if the pollution prevention 
plan proves to be ineffective in achieving the general objectives 
of controlling pollutants in discharges from Concentrated Animal 
Feeding Operations. Amendments to the plan may be reviewed by 
the Director or authorized representative.
   f. The plan shall include, at a minimum, the following items:
   (1) Description of Potential Pollutant Sources. Each plan 
shall provide a description of potential sources which may reasonably 
be expected to add pollutants to runoff from the facility. Each 
plan shall identify activities and materials which may potentially 
be pollutant sources. Each plan shall include:
   (A) A site map, or topographic map indicating, an outline 
of the drainage area of the concentrated animal feeding area; 
each existing structural control measure to reduce pollutants 
in wastewater and precipitation runoff; and surface water bodies.
   (B) A list of significant materials that are used, stored 
or disposed of at the Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation 
(such as pesticides, cleaning agents, fuels etc.). And a list 
of any significant spills of these materials at the facility 
after the issuance date of this permit, or for new facilities, 
since date of operation.
   (C) All existing sampling data.
   (2) Waste Management Controls. The Pollution Prevention Plan 
for each facility shall include a description of management 
controls appropriate for the facility, and the permittee must 
implement such controls. The appropriateness and priorities 
of any controls shall reflect the identified sources of pollutants 
at the facility.
   (A) The plan shall include the location and a description 
of existing structural and non-structural controls. Structural 
controls shall be inspected at least four times per year for 
structural integrity and maintenance. The plan shall include 
dates for inspection of the retention facility, and a log of 
the findings of such inspections.
   (B) Retention Capacity Calculations. The plan must include 
documentation of existing retention facility capacity and the 
assumptions and calculations used in determining the appropriate 
volume capacity. The retention capacity shall be based upon 
the 25-year 24-hour rainfall event and the facility design should 
include a top freeboard of two feet and in no case less than 
one foot. Retention facilities shall be sized based upon the 
following volumes:
   (i) The runoff volume from open lot surfaces plus
   (ii) The runoff volume from areas between open lot surfaces 
and the retention facilities plus
   (iii) The rainfall multiplied by the area of the retention 
facility and wastes basin plus
   (iv) The volume of rainfall from any roofed area that is 
directed into the retention facilities plus
   (v) All wastes and process generated wastewater produced 
during a period of time not less than 21 days or the amount 
specified in the State Water Quality Management Plan including: 
(1) Volume of wet manure that will enter pond plus; (2) volume 
of water used for manure/waste removal plus; (3) volume of cleanup/washwater 
plus; (4) other water such as drinking water that enters the 
retention facilities.

Where appropriate, site specific information should be used 
to determine retention capacity and land application rates. 
All site specific information used must be documented in the 
Pollution Prevention Plan.

   (C) Retention Facility Embankments. The plan shall include 
a description of the design standards for the retention facility 
embankments. The following minimum design standards are required 
for construction and/or modification of a retention facility: 
Soils used in the embankment shall be free of foreign material 
such as trash, brush, and fallen trees. The embankment shall 
be constructed in lifts or layers no more than six inches thick 
and compacted at optimum moisture content. Site specific variation 
in embankment construction must be accompanied by compaction 
testing, certification by a Professional Engineer, or be in 
accordance with Soil Conservation Service design standards. 
Compaction tests must be certified by a Professional Engineer. 
All embankment walls shall be stabilized to prevent erosion 
or deterioration.
   (D) Retention Facility Dewatering. The plan must include 
a schedule for liquid waste removal. A date log indicating weekly 
inspection of wastewater level in retention facility, including 
specific measurement of wastewater level will be kept with the 
plan. Retention facilities shall be equipped with either irrigation 
or evaporation or liquid removal systems capable of dewatering 
the retention facilities. Operators using pits, ponds, or lagoons 
for storage and treatment of storm water, manure and process 
generated wastewater, including flush water waste handling systems, 
shall maintain in their wastewater retention facility sufficient 
freeboard to contain rainfall and rainfall runoff from a 25-
year rainfall event. The operator shall restore freeboard for 
a 25-year rainfall event after any rainfall event or accumulation 
of wastes or process generated wastewater which reduces such 
freeboard, weather permitting. Equipment capable of dewatering 
the wastewater retention structures of waste and/or wastewater 
shall be available whenever needed to restore the freeboard 
required to accommodate the rainfall and runoff resulting from 
the 25-year rainfall event.
   (E) A permanent marker (measuring device) shall be maintained 
in the wastewater retention facilities to show the volume required 
for a 25-year rainfall event within the containment ponds. The 
marker shall be visible from the top of the levee.
   (F) A rain gauge shall be kept on site and properly maintained. 
A log of all measurable rainfall events shall be kept with the 
Pollution Prevention Plan.
   (G) Concentrated animal feeding operations constructing a 
new or modifying an existing wastewater retention facility shall 
insure that all construction and design is in accordance with 
good engineering practices. Where site specific variations are 
warranted, the permittee must document these variations and 
their appropriateness to the plan. Existing facilities which 
have been properly maintained and show no signs of structural 
breakage will be considered to be properly constructed. Structures 
built in accordance with site specific Soil Conservation Service 
plans and specifications will be considered to be in compliance 
with the design and capacity requirements of this permit if 
the site specific conditions are the same as those used by the 
Soil Conservation Service to develop the plan (numbers of animals, 
runoff area, wastes generated, etc.). All retention structure 
design and construction shall, at a minimum, be in accordance 
with the technical standards developed by the USDA Soil Conservation 
Service. The permittee must use those standards that are current 
at the time of construction.
   (H) Liner Requirement. The permittee shall include in the 
plan, site specific documentation that no significant hydrologic 
connection exists between the contained wastewater and surface 
waters of the United States. Where the permittee cannot document 
that no significant hydrologic connection through ground water 
exists, the ponds, lagoons and basins of the retention facilities 
must have a liner which will prevent the potential contamination 
of surface waters.
   (i) Documentation of No Liner Requirement. The permittee 
can document lack of hydrologic connection by either: (1) Documenting 
that there will be no significant leakage from the retention 
structure; or (2) documenting that any leakage from the retention 
structure would not migrate to surface waters. This documentation 
should be certified by a Professional Engineer or qualified 
groundwater scientist and must include information on the hydraulic 
conductivity and thickness of the natural materials underlying 
and forming the walls of the containment structure up to the 
wetted perimeter.
   For documentation of no significant leakage, in-situ materials 
must, at a minimum, meet the minimum criteria for hydraulic 
conductivity and thickness described below. Documentation that 
leakage will not migrate to a surface water must include maps 
showing ground water flow paths, or that the leakage enters 
a confined environment. A written determination by an SCS engineer, 
a Professional Engineer, or qualified groundwater scientist 
that a liner is not needed to prevent leakage of significant 
amounts of pollutants into surface waters via perched or ground 
waters will be considered documentation that no significant 
hydrologic connection exists.
   (ii) Liner Construction. Site-specific conditions should 
be considered in the design and construction of liners. Soil 
Conservation Service liner requirements or liners constructed 
and maintained in accordance with Soil Conservation Service 
design specifications in Technical Note 716 (or its current 
equivalent) shall be considered to prevent hydrologic connection 
which could result in the contamination of surface waters. Liners 
for retention structures should be constructed in accordance 
with good engineering practices. Where no site-specific assessment 
has been done by a Soil Conservation Service, Professional Engineer, 
or qualified groundwater scientist the liner shall be constructed 
to have hydraulic conductivities no greater than 1*10-7 cm/sec, 
with a thickness of 1.5 feet or greater or its equivalency in 
other materials.
   (iii) Liner Maintenance. Where a liner is installed to prevent 
hydrologic connection the permittee must maintain the liner 
to inhibit infiltration of wastewaters. Liners shall be protected 
from animals by fences or other protective devices. No trees 
shall be allowed to grow within the potential distance of the 
root zone. Any mechanical or structural damage to the liner 
will be evaluated by a Soil Conservation Service engineer, Professional 
Engineer, or qualified groundwater scientist within 30 days 
of the damage. Documentation of liner maintenance shall be kept 
with the Pollution Prevention Plan. The permittee shall have 
a Soil Conservation Service engineer, Professional Engineer, 
or qualified groundwater scientist review the documentation 
and do a site evaluation every five years. If notified by the 
State or the Director that the potential exists for the contamination 
of surface waters or drinking water, the permittee shall install 
a leak detection system or monitoring wells in accordance with 
that notice. Documentation of compliance with the notification 
must be kept with the Pollution Prevention Plan, as well as 
all sampling data. Data from the monitoring wells must be kept 
on site for three years with the pollution prevention plan. 
The first year's sampling shall be considered the baseline data 
and must be retained on site for the life of the facility.
   (I) Wastewater Removal and Land Application. Retention facilities 
shall be equipped with either irrigation or evaporation systems 
capable of dewatering the retention facilities, or a regular 
schedule of wastewater removal by contract hauler. The Pollution 
Prevention Plan must include all calculations, as well as, all 
factors used in determining land application rates, acreage, 
and crops. Land application rates must take into account the 
nutrient contribution of any land applied manures. If land application 
is utilized for disposal of wastewater, the following requirements 
shall apply:
   (i) The discharge or drainage of irrigated wastewater is 
prohibited where it will result in a discharge to water of the 
U.S.
   (ii) When irrigation disposal of wastewater is used, facilities 
shall not exceed the nutrient uptake of the crop coverage or 
planned crop planting with any land application of wastewater 
and/or manure. Land application rates of wastewaters should 
be based on the available nitrogen content, however, where local 
water quality is threatened by phosphorus, the permittee should 
limit the application rate to the recommended rates of available 
phosphorus for needed crop uptake and provide controls for runoff 
and erosion as appropriate for site conditions.
   (iii) Wastewater shall not be irrigated when the ground is 
frozen or saturated or during rainfall events (unless to filter 
wastewaters from retention structures which are going to overflow 
directly to a water of the U.S.).
   (iv) Irrigation practices shall be managed so as to reduce 
or minimize ponding or puddling of wastewater on the site, contamination 
of ground or surface water, and the occurrence of nuisance conditions 
such as odors and flies.
   (v) It shall be considered "Proper Operation and Maintenance" 
for a facility which has been properly operated, and that is 
in danger of imminent overflow due to chronic or catastrophic 
rainfall, to discharge wastewaters to land application sites 
for filtering prior to discharging to waters of the U.S. 
   (vi) Facilities including ponds, pipes, ditches, pumps, diversion 
and irrigation equipment shall be maintained to insure ability 
to fully comply with the terms of this permit and the pollution 
prevention plan.
   (vii) Adequate equipment or land application area shall be 
available for removal of such waste and wastewater as required 
to maintain the retention capacity of the facility for compliance 
with this permit.
   (viii) Disposal of wastewaters shall not cause or contribute 
to the taking of any endangered or threatened species of plant, 
fish, or wildlife; nor shall such disposal interfere with or 
cause harm to migratory birds. The operator shall notify the 
appropriate fish and wildlife agency in the event of any significant 
fish, wildlife, or migratory bird/endangered species kill or 
die-off on or near retention ponds or in fields where waste 
has been applied, and which could reasonably have resulted from 
waste management at the facility.
   (ix) Where land application sites are isolated from surface 
waters and no potential exists for runoff to reach a water of 
U.S., application rates may exceed nutrient crop uptake rates 
as provided in an approved state program. No land application 
under this section shall cause or contribute to a violation 
of water quality standards.
   (J) Manure and Pond Solids Handling and Land Application. 
Storage and land application of manure shall not cause a discharge 
of significant pollutants to waters of the United States or 
cause a water quality violation in waters of the United States. 
At all times, sufficient volume shall be maintained within the 
control facility to accommodate manure, other solids, wastewaters 
and rain waters (runoff) from the concentrated animal feeding 
areas. 
   (i) Where the permittee decides to land apply manures and 
pond solids that plan shall include: (1) a description of waste 
handling procedures and equipment availability; (2) the calculations 
and assumptions used for determining land application rates; 
and (3) any nutrient analysis data if laboratory analysis is 
done. Land application rates of wastes should be based on the 
available nitrogen content of the solid waste. However, where 
local water quality is threatened by phosphorous, the application 
rate should be limited to the recommended rates of available 
phosphorus for needed crop uptake and provide controls for runoff 
and erosion as appropriate for site conditions. 
   (ii) If the waste (manure) is sold or given to other persons 
for disposal, the permittee must maintain a log of: date of 
removal from the feedlot; name of hauler; and amount, in wet 
tons, dry tons or cubic yards, of waste removed from the feedlot. 
(Incidental amounts, given away by the pick-up truck load, need 
not be recorded.) Where the wastes are to be land applied by 
the hauler, the premittee must make available to the hauler 
any nutrient sample analysis from that year. 
   (iii) The procedures documented in the pollution prevention 
plan must ensure that the handling and disposal of wastes comply 
with the following requirements: 
   (a) Adequate manure storage capacity based upon manure and 
waste production and land availability shall be provided. Storage 
and/or surface disposal of manure in the 100-year flood plain 
or near water courses is prohibited unless protected buy adequate 
berms or other structures. The land application of wastes at 
agricultural rates shall not be considered surface disposal 
in this case and is not prohibited. 
   (b) Runoff from manure storage piles must be retained on 
site. 
   (c) Waste shall not be applied to land when the ground is 
frozen or saturated or during rainfall events. 
   (d) Waste manure shall be applied to suitable and at appropriate 
times and rates. Discharge (run-off) of waste from the application 
site is prohibited. Timing and rate of applications to shall 
be response to crop needs, assuming usual nutrient losses, expected 
precipitation and soil conditions. 
   (e) Disposal of manure shall not cause or contribute to the 
taking of any endangered or threatened specie of plant, fish, 
or wildlife; nor shall such disposal interfere with or cause 
harm to migratory birds. The operator shall notify the appropriate 
fish and wildlife agency in the event of a fish, wildlife, or 
migratory bird/endangered species kill or die-off on or near 
retention ponds or in fields where waste has been applied. 
   (f) All necessary practices to minimize waste manure transport 
to water courses shall be utilized and documented to the plan. 
   (g) Edge-of-field, grassed strips shall be used to separate 
water courses from runoff carrying eroded soil and manure particles. 
Land subject to excessive erosion shall be avoided. 
   (h) Where land application sites are isolated from surface 
waters and no potential exists for runoff to reach a water of 
the U.S., application rates may exceed nutrient crop uptake 
rates as provided in an approved state program. No land application 
under this section shall cause or contribute to a violation 
of water quality standards.
   (3) Preventive Maintenance. The plan shall include an appropriate 
schedule for preventative maintenance. Operators will provide 
routine maintenance to their control facilities in accordance 
with schedule and plan of operation to ensure compliance with 
this permit. The permittee shall keep a maintenance log documenting 
that preventative maintenance was done. A preventive maintenance 
program shall involve inspection and maintenance of all runoff 
management devices (cleaning separators, catch basins) as well 
as inspecting and testing facility equipment and containment 
structures to uncover conditions that could cause breakdowns 
or failures resulting in discharges of pollutants to surface 
waters. 
   (4) Sediment and Erosion Prevention. The plan shall identify 
areas which, due to topography, activities, or other factors, 
have a high potential for significant soil erosion. Where these 
areas have the potential to contribute pollutants to waters 
of the U.S. the Pollution Prevention Plan shall identify measures 
used to limit erosion and pollutant runoff. 
   (5) Employee Training. Where employees are responsible for 
work activities which relate to permit compliance, those employees 
must be regularly trained or informed of any information pertinent 
to the proper operation and maintenance of the facility and 
waste disposal. Employee training shall inform personnel at 
all levels of responsibility of the general components and goals 
of the pollution prevention plan. Training shall include topic 
as appropriate such as land application of wastes, proper operation 
and maintenance of the facility, good housekeeping and material 
management practices, necessary recordkeeping requirements, 
and spill response and clean up. The permittee is responsible 
for determining the appropriate training frequency for different 
levels of personnel and the pollution prevention plan shall 
identify periodic dates for such training. 
   (6) Inspection and Recordkeeping. The operator or the person 
named in the pollution prevention plan as the individual responsible 
for drafting and implementing the plan shall be responsible 
for inspections and recordkeeping. 
   (A) Recordkeeping and Internal Reporting Procedures. Incidents 
such as spills, or other discharges, along with other information 
describing the pollution potential and quantity of the discharge 
shall be included in the records. Inspections and maintenance 
activities shall be documented and recorded. These records must 
be kept on site for a minimum of three years. 
   (B) Visual Inspections. The authorized person shall inspect 
designated equipment and facility areas. Material handling areas 
shall be inspected for evidence of, or the potential for, pollutants 
entering the drainage system. A follow-up procedure shall be 
used to ensure that appropriate action has been taken in response 
to the inspection.
   (C) Site Inspection. A complete inspection of the facility 
shall be done and a report made documenting the findings of 
the inspection made at least once/year. The inspection shall 
be conducted by the authorized person named in the pollution 
prevention plan, to verify that the description of potential 
pollutant sources is accurate; the drainage map has been updated 
or otherwise modified to reflect current conditions; and the 
controls outlined in the pollution prevention plan to reduce 
pollutants are being implemented and are adequate. Records documenting 
significant observation made during the site inspection shall 
be retained as part of the pollution prevention plan. Records 
of inspections shall be maintained for a period of three years.
   3. Other Legal Requirements. No condition of this permit 
shall release the permittee from any responsibility or requirements 
under other statutes or regulations, Federal, State or local.

Part IV. Monitoring and Reporting Requirements


A. Discharge Notification 

   If, for any reason, there is a discharge to a water of the 
U.S., the permittee is required to make verbal notification 
to EPA at (214) 655-6593, and to notify the Director and the 
State in writing within 14 working days of the discharge from 
the retention facility. In addition the permittee shall document 
the following information to the pollution prevention plan within 
14 days of becoming aware of such discharge: 
   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 flow and volume discharged. 
   2. The period of discharge, including exact dates and times, 
and, if not corrected the anticipated time the discharge is 
expected to continue, and steps being taken to reduce, eliminate 
and prevent recurrence of the discharge. 
   3. If caused by a precipitation event(s), information from 
the onsite rain gauge concerning the size of the precipitation 
event.
   4. Unless otherwise directed by the permitting authority: 
Large facilities (those with 1000 animal units or more) shall 
sample and analyze all discharges from retention facilities. 
Medium facilities (those with less than 1000 animal units but 
with 300 or more) shall sample and analyze all discharges, but 
at a maximum required frequency of once/year. Small facilities 
(those under 300 animal units which have been designated by 
the Director as a point source) shall sample and analyze all 
discharges, but at a maximum required frequency of once per 
permit term. Sample analysis shall be documented to the Pollution 
Prevention Plan. 
   5. Samples shall consist of grab samples taken from the over-
flow or discharges from the retention structure. A minimum of 
one sample shall be taken from the initial discharge (within 
30 minutes). The sample shall be taken and analyzed in accordance 
with EPA approved methods for water analysis listed in 40 CFR 
part 136. Measurements taken for the purpose of monitoring shall 
be representative of the monitored discharge. 
   6. Sample analysis of the discharge must, at a minimum, include 
the following: Fecal Coliform bacteria; 5-day Biochemical Oxygen 
Demand (BOD5); Total Suspended Solids (TSS); ammonia nitrogen; 
and any pesticide which the operator has reason to believe could 
be in the discharge. 
   7. Sampling Waiver. In lieu of discharge sampling data the 
permittee must document description of why discharge samples 
could not be collected when the discharger is unable to collect 
samples due to climatic conditions which prohibit the collection 
of samples including weather conditions that create dangerous 
conditions for personnel (such as local flooding, high winds, 
hurricane, tornadoes, electrical storms, etc.). Once dangerous 
conditions have passed, the permittee shall collect a sample 
from the retention structure pond or lagoon. The sample shall 
be analyzed in accordance with Part IV.A.6. & 7. (above). 

B. Written Notification 

   All discharge information and data will be made available 
to the Director upon request. Signed copies of monitoring reports 
shall be submitted to the Director if requested at the address 
specified in the request. 

C. Penalties for Falsification of Reports

   The Act provides that any person who knowingly makes any 
false statement, representation, or certification in any record 
or other document submitted or required to be maintained under 
this permit, including reports of compliance or noncompliance 
shall, upon conviction be punished by a fine of not more than 
$10,000 per violation, or by imprisonment for not more than 
six months per violation, or by both.

D. Retention of Records

   The permittee shall retain copies of all records required 
by this permit for a period of at least three years from the 
date reported. This period may be extended by request of the 
Director at any time.

E. Availability of Reports

   In addition to data determined to be confidential under 40 
CFR part 2, information submitted to EPA may be claimed as confidential 
by the submitter. If no claim is made at the time of submission, 
EPA may make the information available to the public without 
further notice. As required by the Act, however, Notices of 
Intent, permits, the effluent data shall not be considered confidential 
and any claims of confidentiality for this information will 
be denied.

F. Planned Changes

   The permittee shall document to the Pollution Prevention 
Plan as soon as possible, any planned physical alterations or 
additions to the permitted facility. The permittee must insure 
that any change or facility expansion will not result in a discharge 
in violation of this permit.

G. Duty to Provide Information

   The permittee shall furnish to the Director, within a reasonable 
time, any information which the Director may request 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.

H. Other Information

   When the permittee becomes aware that he failed to submit 
any relevant facts or submitted incorrect information in the 
Notice of Intent or in any other report to the Director, he 
shall promptly submit such facts or information.

I. Signatory Requirements

   All reports or information submitted to the Director shall 
be signed and certified.
   1. All reports or information shall be signed by the facility 
owner or operator/manager where the authority to sign documents 
has been assigned or delegated to the operator/manager.
   a. For facilities owned by a corporation: by a responsible 
corporate officer. For the purpose of this permit, a responsible 
corporate officer means (i) a president, secretary, treasurer, 
or vice president of the corporation in charge of a principal 
business function, or any other person who performs similar 
policy- or decision-making functions for the corporation.
   b. For a facilities owned by a partnership or sole proprietorship: 
by a general partner or the proprietor, respectively.
   c. For facilities owned by 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 duly authorized representative only if the authorization 
is made in writing by a person describe above, and the authorization 
specifies either an individual or a position having responsibility 
for the overall operation. 
   3. 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 gathered and evaluated 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. 

Part V. Standard Requirements 


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 loss of authorization 
to discharge under this general permit; or for denial of a permit 
renewal application. 

B. Inspection and Entry 

   The permittee shall allow the Director, or an authorized 
representative of EPA including the State, 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. 

C. Toxic Pollutants 

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

D. Penalties for Violation of Permit Conditions

   The Act provides that any person who violates a permit condition 
implementing sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 319, or 405 of 
the Act is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $25,000 
per day for each violation. Any person who willfully or negligently 
violates permit conditions implementing sections 301, 302, 306, 
307, 308, 318, or 405 of the Act, or any permit condition or 
limitation is subject to a fine of not less than $2,500, nor 
more than $25,000 per day of violation, or by imprisonment for 
not more than one year, or both.

E. Continuation of the Expired General Permit

   An expired general permit continues in force and effect until 
a new general permit is issued.

F. 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.

G. 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.

H. 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. Proper 
operation and maintenance includes the operation of backup or 
auxiliary facilities or similar systems only when necessary 
to achieve compliance with the conditions of the permit.

I. Penalties for Falsification of Monitoring Systems and Reports

   The Act provides that any person who falsifies, tampers with, 
or knowingly renders inaccurate any monitoring device or method 
required to be maintained under this permit shall, upon conviction, 
be punished by fines and imprisonment described in Part V.D. 
(Penalties for Violation of Permit Conditions) of this permit.

J. Property Rights

   The issuance of this permit does not convey and 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.

K. 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.

L. 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.

M. Permit Actions

   This permit may be modified, revoked or 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.

Part VI. Reopener Clause

   If effluent limitations or requirements are established or 
modified in an approved State Water Quality Management Plan 
or Waste Load Allocation and if they are more stringent than 
those listed in this permit or control a pollutant not listed 
in this permit, this permit may be reopened to include those 
more stringent limits or requirements.

Part VII. Definitions

   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.
   Agronomic Rates means the land application of animal wastes 
at rates of application which provide the crop or forage growth 
with needed nutrients for optimum health and growth. 
   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. 
   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 sheep multiplied by 0.1, plus the 
number of horses multiplied by 2.0. 1000 animal units will refer 
to group a. in definition number 8. 300 animal units (but less 
than 1000) will refer to group b. in definition number 8. 
   Best Available Technology ("BAT") means the best available 
technology which is economically achievable established under 
301(b) and 402 of the Act. The criteria and standards for imposing 
technology-based treatment requirements are listed in 40 CFR 
125.3. 
   Best Conventional Technology ("BCT") means the best conventional 
pollutant control technology which is economically achievable 
established under 301(b) and 402 of the Act. The criteria and 
standards for imposing technology-based treatment requirements 
are listed in 40 CFR 125.3. 
   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". Best Management Practices 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. 
   Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation 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. Animal feeding operations 
defined as "concentrated" in 40 CFR part 122 appendix B are 
as follows: 
   a. 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: 

   1. 1,000 slaughter or feeder cattle; 
   2. 700 mature dairy cattle (whether milkers or dry cows); 
   3. 2,500 swine weighing over 55 pounds; 
   4. 500 horses; 
   5. 10,000 sheep or lambs; 
   6. 55,000 turkeys; 
   7, 100,000 laying hens or broilers when the facility has 
unlimited continuous flow watering systems; 
   8. 30,000 laying hens or broilers when facility has liquid 
manure handling system; 
   9. 5,000 ducks; or 
   10. 1,000 animal units from a combination of slaughter steers 
and heifers, mature dairy cattle, swine over 55 pounds and sheep;

   b. New and existing operations which discharge pollutants 
into navigable waters 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:

   1. 300 slaughter or feeder cattle;
   2. 200 mature dairy cattle (whether milkers or dry cows);
   3. 750 swine weighing over 55 pounds;
   4. 150 horses;
   5. 3,000 sheep or lambs;
   6. 16,000 turkeys;
   7. 30,000 laying hens or broilers when the facility has unlimited 
continuous flow watering systems;
   8. 9,000 laying hens or broilers when the facility has a 
liquid manure handling system;
   9. 1,500 ducks; or
   10. 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 concentrated 
animal feeding operation as defined above if such animal feeding 
operation discharges only in the event of a 25-year, 24-hour 
storm event.

   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.
   Environmental Review means the process whereby an evaluation 
of the environmental information provided by the permit applicant 
is undertaken by EPA to identify and evaluate the related environmental 
impacts to determine if there will be a significant impact to 
the environment from the new facility (40 CFR 6.101(c)).
   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, and is subject 
to 40 CFR part 412.
   Groundwater means any subsurface waters.
   Hydrologic Connection means the interflow and exchange between 
surface impoundments and surface water through an underground 
corridor or groundwater. In the context of this permit, the 
reduction of hydrologic connection is to reduce the groundwater 
flow contact resulting in the transfer of pollutant materials 
from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation containment structures 
into surface waters.
   Land Application means the removal of wastewater and waste 
solids from a control facility and distribution to, or incorporation 
into, the soil mantle primarily for disposal purposes.
   Liner means any barrier in the form of a layer, membrane 
or blanket, installed to prevent a significant hydrologic connection 
between liquids contained in retention structures and waters 
of the United States.
   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).
   Retention Facility or Retention Structures means all collection 
ditches, conduits and swales for the collection of runoff and 
wastewater, and all basins, ponds and lagoons used to store 
wastes, wastewaters and manures.
   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 reasonably be expected to occur 
in the absence of a bypass. Severe property damage does not 
mean economic loss caused by delays in production.
   The Act means the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as 
amended, also known as the Clean Water Act, found at 33 U.S.C. 
1251 et seq.
   Toxic Pollutants mean any pollutant listed as toxic under 
section 307(a)(1) of the Act.
   Qualified Groundwater Scientist means a scientist or engineer 
who has received a baccalaureate or post-graduate degree in 
natural sciences or engineering and has sufficient training 
and experience in groundwater hydrology and related fields as 
may be demonstrated by state registration, professional certification, 
or completion of accredited university programs that enable 
that individual to make sound professional judgments regarding 
groundwater monitoring, contamination fate and transport, and 
corrective action (40 CFR 258.50(f)).

Appendix A-State Specific Permit Language for the State of New 
Mexico

   This NPDES permit is intended to protect surface waters resources 
that are "waters of the United States" from contamination resulting 
from concentrated animal feeding operations through either surface 
of subsurface conveyance. This permit is not intended to protect 
ground water resources from contamination. Compliance with this 
permit does not absolve the permittee from the need to comply 
with New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission Regulations 
for the protection of ground water. For information on these 
state regulations please contact the new Mexico Environment 
Department, Groundwater Protection and Remediation Bureau, P.O. 
Box 26110, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87502 or all (505) 827-2900.

State Specific Permit Language for the State of Oklahoma
   Part I.C. Limitations on Coverage. The following point source 
discharges are not authorized by this general permit:
7. "New" Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations commencing after 
    the effective date of the Oklahoma Water Quality Standards 
    (Oklahoma Annotated Code Title 785, (Chapter 45) effective 
    date June 25, 1992) to the following waters:

  a. Waterbodies designated as "Outstanding Resource Waters" 
    and/or "Scenic Rivers" in Appendix A of the Oklahoma Water 
    Quality Standards;

  b. Oklahoma waterbodies located within the watersheds of waterbodies 
    designated as "Scenic Rivers" in Appendix A of the Oklahoma 
    Water Quality Standards; and

  c. Waterbodies located within the boundaries of Oklahoma Water 
    Quality Standards Appendix B areas which are specifically 
    designated as "Outstanding Resource Waters" in Appendix 
    A of the Oklahoma Water Quality Standards.

State Specific Permit Language for the State of Texas
   Part IV.
A. Discharge Notification. If, for any reason, there is a discharge, 
    the permittee is required to notify the Director in writing 
    within 14 days of the discharge from the retention facility. 
    Written notification of discharges from retention structures 
    to waters of the U.S. shall be reported to the State within 
    five (5) working days. In addition the permittee shall document 
    the following information to the pollution prevention plan 
    within 14 days of becoming aware of such discharge:


>>>>  See the accompanying hardcopy volume for non-machine-readable
data that appears at this point. <<<<



[FR Doc. 93-1050 Filed 2-5-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C