Animal Waste Disposal Issues

#7100142

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PURPOSE

In July 1995, animal waste from an eight-acre lagoon in North Carolina burst through its dike, spilling approximately 22 million gallons of animal waste into the New River. The spill was twice the size of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. We reviewed information related to this and five other spills occurring in the summer of 1995 to determine what actions the state had taken before and after the spills, and to determine what EPA could do to reduce the possibility of animal waste spills in the future, in North Carolina and elsewhere.

RESULTS IN BRIEF

North Carolina is the number one meat-producing state in the nation. For hogs alone, the animal waste produced for disposal is an estimated 9.5 million tons per year. In the summer of 1995, North Carolina experienced six spills from animal waste lagoons totaling almost 30 million gallons. North Carolina has not issued any National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits to livestock or poultry facilities. Nationwide, only 30% of the estimated 6,600 operations meeting concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) size requirements have been issued NPDES permits (although not all are required to have permits).

North Carolina, which was delegated NPDES authority in 1976, has had a no-discharge state program for animal feeding operations that has been stricter than federal regulations. For example, before 1993, state regulations set requirements on hog facilities with 250 hogs, whereas federal regulations are not automatically applicable until the facility has 2,500 hogs weighing an average of 55 pounds⁽¹⁾. In 1993, the state started strengthening its animal waste management program by requiring facility registration and certified animal waste management plans.

As a result of the animal waste spills in 1995, the state further strengthened its animal waste management program. Additional requirements included permitting, stricter lagoon construction requirements, annual inspection requirements, certification of operators of the waste management system, and siting requirements for the animal feeding operations. The permitting system requires an animal waste management plan, which state personnel call the "backbone" of the permit system. The plan establishes the individual requirements for a facility including nutrient management. The improvements in the state's program are due to the state's efforts, involving several different state offices, with significant assistance from the North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service of the U. S. Department of Agriculture. EPA was not significantly involved in this effort.

Even with its efforts to strengthen its animal waste management programs beyond federal requirements, North Carolina experienced problems with these programs, including the spills cited previously. Twenty-two states, by law, cannot adopt environmental program regulations that are more restrictive than the specific requirements in federal regulations. Therefore, should any of these states experience problems similar to North Carolina, they will neither be able to readily strengthen state environmental regulations to prevent future occurrences, nor can they rely on federal regulations to provide this protection.

Land application, nutrient management, specific facility construction, and waste system operator training and certification are critical elements of North Carolina's animal waste management and regulatory program. Federal regulations do not address these elements, but the regulations allow NPDES permits to include land application procedures where the land application is a necessary part of the animal waste management system. EPA encourages including the remaining elements. Permitting helps ensure that the critical elements of a good animal waste management system are adhered to. Permitting also enhances compliance efforts. Under existing regulations, when inspecting an unpermitted facility, the inspector may be able to take expedient action only upon observing a discharge from a lagoon.

"Pollution prevention first" is an Agency strategy. The goal for the CAFO program should be to prevent a spill, and therefore pollution, before it occurs. The permit can be the tool to help achieve that goal. Therefore, the Agency should maximize use of current permitting authority. Current regulations allow permitting authorities (federal or state) to designate an animal feeding operations as a CAFO on a case-by-case basis if the operation is a significant contributor to pollution of waters of the U.S. Permitting authorities must complete an on-site inspection that considers factors such as size, location, vegetation, rainfall and other elements that affect the likelihood or frequency of discharge prior to designating a CAFO. The designation process may be time and manpower intensive; however, we believe it offers a measure of protection that otherwise would not occur. For this reason, we suggest its adoption on a more wide-spread basis.

The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) has included CAFOs as a priority for enforcement and compliance actions in 1998. OECA is now working to develop a compliance and enforcement strategy, which would include means of identification of non-permitted facilities. Use of U.S. Department of Agriculture data to identify areas with environmental problems is being considered as a means to focus the compliance and enforcement strategy for CAFOs.

RECOMMENDATIONS

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Water, with the support of the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, take actions to implement the following recommendations. CAFO regulations should be revised and reissued to streamline and strengthen the definition of a CAFO. Regulatory actions should also be taken to include minimum adequate requirements for land application, nutrient management, waste system operator training, and facility and expansion construction requirements.

In the meantime, use of existing regulations should be maximized by encouraging in delegated states and requiring in non-delegated states intensive use of the case-by-case CAFO designation. A means for identification of at-risk animal feeding operations for permitting consideration under CAFO case-by-case designation rule should be developed. We also recommend that a plan to inspect permitted and unpermitted CAFOs on a regular basis be established.

Agency Comments

In the March 31, 1997 response, the Office of Water and the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance generally agreed with the report and agreed to take corrective actions that should enable the Agency to provide better protection and prevent pollution from animal waste disposal. OW and OECA indicated that they share the concerns expressed in the report about the environmental threat posed by animal waste. Both offices have included animal waste as a priority in office initiatives for fiscal 1997 and 1998, and are working together to assure proper regulation of CAFOs.

Office of the Inspector General Evaluation

We believe that the actions of OW and OECA will address the concerns addressed in the report. The cooperation and coordination of OW and OECA efforts in addressing the animal waste issue should assist in strengthening EPA's water quality program. Applicable comments from the response have been incorporated in the report.

GLOSSARY

Animal Unit - unit of measurement used to determine when animal feeding operations with different types of animals meet the CAFO definition. Based on its size, each animal is assigned a different weighting factor in the regulations. For example, an animal feeding operation with feeder cattle and swine would be defined as a CAFO when the number of feeder cattle multiplied by 1.0 plus the number of swine (over 55 pounds) multiplied by 0.4 totals more than 1,000.

Animal Waste Management Plan - a plan to properly collect, store, treat, or apply animal waste to land in an environmentally safe manner. The plan generally includes information on site evaluation, facility design, and a waste utilization plan that addresses land application procedures and nutrient management. Also known as waste utilization plan or pollution prevention plan.

Animal Waste Management System - combination of structures and nonstructural practices serving an animal feeding operation that provides for the collection, treatment, storage, and/or land application of animal waste.

Effluent - waste material discharged into the environment especially when serving as a pollutant.

Effluent Guidelines - effluent limitation guidelines, which mean any restrictions established on quantities, rates, and concentrations of chemical, physical, biological, or other constituents that are discharged from point sources.

Lagoon - a confined body of wastewaters to hold animal byproducts including bodily waste from animals or a mixture of waste with feed, bedding, litter, or other agricultural material.

Land Application - removal of wastewater and waste solids from a control facility, such as a lagoon, and distribution to, or incorporation in, the soil primarily for disposal purposes.

Nutrient Management - managing the amount, form, placement, and timing of application of nutrients (whether as animal waste, commercial fertilizer, or other form of nutrients) to plants. The purpose is to supply plant nutrients for optimum forage and crop yields, minimize entry of nutrients to surface and groundwater, and maintain or improve condition of soil.

Point Source - any discernible, confined, and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, or vessel or other floating craft, from which pollutants are or may be discharged.

"Wet" Animal Waste Management System - System using lagoon and land application for disposal of animal wastes.

Footnotes

Animal feeding facilities with 750 to 2,500 hogs must meet federal regulations in certain circumstances, such as directly discharging wastes into waters of the United States. EPA may also designate facilities as CAFOs regardless of the numbers of animals if there are indications of polluting activity, but only on a case-by-case basis.

Go To:

Table of Contents

Audit Report

Created April 21, 1997

Top of page

Animal Waste Disposal Issues

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Local Navigation