The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has finalized a rule to help protect the nation’s water quality by requiring concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) to safely manage manure. The final rule responds to a February 2005 federal court decision that upheld most of the agency’s 2003 rule, but directed further action or clarification on some portions.
The rule adds new requirements relating to nutrient management plans (NMPs) for permitted CAFOs. The rule also includes a no-discharge certification for CAFOs that can establish that they will not discharge. Additionally, the rule revises the requirement for all CAFOs to apply for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits and instead requires only those CAFOs that discharge, or propose to discharge, to apply for permits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: Is there still a requirement for CAFOs to seek permit coverage?
A: Yes. Under the final rule, CAFOs that discharge or propose to
discharge have a duty to apply for NPDES permits, the same as other categories of dischargers.
Q: What is the benefit to the CAFO owner/operator of having an NPDES permit?
A: Because the Clean Water Act (CWA) prohibits discharges from unpermitted CAFOs, NPDES permit coverage provides certainty to CAFO operators regarding activities and actions that are necessary to comply with the CWA. Compliance with the permit may act as a shield
against EPA or state CWA enforcement or citizen lawsuits. Furthermore, NPDES permits allow for discharge when precipitation causes an overflow from a structure that is designed, constructed, operated and maintained in accordance with the permit. Finally, upset provisions can protect permittees when emergencies or natural disasters cause discharges beyond their reasonable control.,
Q: Why should an unpermitted CAFO certify if it is not going to discharge?
A: In the event of a discharge from a properly certified CAFO, the CAFO will not be liable for prior failure to seek permit coverage. The CAFO, however, remains liable for discharging without an NPDES permit.
Q: With respect to land application, what are the two approaches in the final rule for expressing rates of application?
A: The final rule provides two approaches a CAFO may use in its NMP to identify annual maximum rates of application of manure, litter, and process wastewater by field and crop for each year of permit coverage:
· The "linear approach" expresses field-specific maximum rates of application in terms of the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus from manure, litter, and process wastewater allowed to be applied.
· The "narrative rate approach" allows application rates to be determined based on the total amount of nutrients combined with a specific, quantitative method for calculating the amount of manure, litter, process wastewater allowed to be land applied.
Q: What constitutes a substantial change to the NMP and requires a
permit modification?
A: The final rule includes a list of changes to the NMP that constitute a substantial change to the terms of a CAFOs NMP. Examples of such substantial changes include the addition of new land
application areas not previously included in the CAFOs NMP and addition of any crop not included in the terms of the CAFOs NMP and corresponding field-specific rates of application.
Q: If a CAFO already has coverage under a permit, will the operator need to submit a new application by 2/27/09?
A: No. EPA recognizes that approximately 9,000 CAFOs already have NPDES permit coverage. These CAFOs must comply with the conditions of their existing permits as long as those permits remain in effect. Upon expiration of existing individual or general permits, EPA expects permitting authorities to issue new individual or general permits that will then need to reflect the requirements of this rule. Permitting authorities may request NMPs at any time based on the 2003 rule, and newly permitted CAFOs will need to submit an NMP when seeking permit coverage.
Q: What are the compliance deadlines for recently defined CAFOs?
A: The compliance deadline to apply for NPDES permits for operations that were recently defined as CAFOs by the 2003 rule is February 27, 2009.
Federal CAFO Contact:
EPA Region 7 CAFO coordinator Donna Porter, porter.donna@epa.gov, (800) 223-0425.
Missouri CAFO contact:
Darrick Steen, darricksteen@dnr.mo.gov, (573) 751-1403
Missouri Farmers
2009 Lunch and Learn Schedule:
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Farmers Provide Cheap Food, So Get Off Their Backs
As I See It: Farmers provide cheap food, so get off their backs
By Marcia Gorrell, Special to The Kansas City Star
I grew up in the Kansas City area, a typical “city kid” until I went to the University of Missouri-Columbia and fell head over heels for a farm boy from Saline County.
I have seen both sides of the agriculture debate.
I know what it is like to rely on media reports, not really knowing the true story of U.S. agriculture. But after 20-plus years of operating a farm with my husband, I now know the “rest of the story.”
That is why I was very upset by Karen Dillon’s recent Star article (10/30, “Factory farms under fire; Warehouse-style conditions and confinement inspire a wave of challenges”) about the Scott Phillips farm near Drexel.
It could have focused on the fact that Americans enjoy the safest, most abundant and least expensive food supply in the world. We spend just 10 percent of our take-home paychecks on food, a lower percentage than any other country in the world.
Dillon wrote about the European Union farmers phasing out gestation and veal crates, as well as chicken cages. What she didn’t say is that in the United Kingdom, consumers pay three times more for their food than we do in the United States.
They also import more than 40 percent of their food. That figure has doubled since 1984. And the UK still pays less for food than other European Union countries.
As one local farmer told me: “This is the one industry in America we are better at than any other country. We don’t want to lose agriculture, too.”
The Phillips farm is one of more than 99 percent that has not had violations, that care about their animals and that have adapted modern farming practices based on sound research by industry and university officials.
However, the article mentioned farms that have had violations. No one in agriculture condones those abuses, but it certainly doesn’t depict the real truth of American agriculture.
Many of the backers of Proposition 2 in California have stated they want to end animal agriculture and meat consumption altogether.
So it forwards their interests if prices are higher and meat, eggs and milk are less affordable for the average American.But is it in your best interest?
Please listen to the experts in the fields, the farmers such as Phillips who day after day care for their animals. If you instead focus on the “horror” stories of less than 1 percent of our industry, we are in danger of losing family farmers in America, just like they have in the UK.
We are already dependent on foreign oil; do we really want to be dependent on other countries for our most basic need — food?
Marcia Gorrell, her husband and two sons raise corn, soybeans and cattle. She lives in Marshall, Mo.
By Marcia Gorrell, Special to The Kansas City Star
I grew up in the Kansas City area, a typical “city kid” until I went to the University of Missouri-Columbia and fell head over heels for a farm boy from Saline County.
I have seen both sides of the agriculture debate.
I know what it is like to rely on media reports, not really knowing the true story of U.S. agriculture. But after 20-plus years of operating a farm with my husband, I now know the “rest of the story.”
That is why I was very upset by Karen Dillon’s recent Star article (10/30, “Factory farms under fire; Warehouse-style conditions and confinement inspire a wave of challenges”) about the Scott Phillips farm near Drexel.
It could have focused on the fact that Americans enjoy the safest, most abundant and least expensive food supply in the world. We spend just 10 percent of our take-home paychecks on food, a lower percentage than any other country in the world.
Dillon wrote about the European Union farmers phasing out gestation and veal crates, as well as chicken cages. What she didn’t say is that in the United Kingdom, consumers pay three times more for their food than we do in the United States.
They also import more than 40 percent of their food. That figure has doubled since 1984. And the UK still pays less for food than other European Union countries.
As one local farmer told me: “This is the one industry in America we are better at than any other country. We don’t want to lose agriculture, too.”
The Phillips farm is one of more than 99 percent that has not had violations, that care about their animals and that have adapted modern farming practices based on sound research by industry and university officials.
However, the article mentioned farms that have had violations. No one in agriculture condones those abuses, but it certainly doesn’t depict the real truth of American agriculture.
Many of the backers of Proposition 2 in California have stated they want to end animal agriculture and meat consumption altogether.
So it forwards their interests if prices are higher and meat, eggs and milk are less affordable for the average American.But is it in your best interest?
Please listen to the experts in the fields, the farmers such as Phillips who day after day care for their animals. If you instead focus on the “horror” stories of less than 1 percent of our industry, we are in danger of losing family farmers in America, just like they have in the UK.
We are already dependent on foreign oil; do we really want to be dependent on other countries for our most basic need — food?
Marcia Gorrell, her husband and two sons raise corn, soybeans and cattle. She lives in Marshall, Mo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)