34874 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 123 / Friday, June 26, 1998 / Notices

Tuesday through Sunday, 9 a.m to 3

p.m., weather permitting.

In addition to these pump-out

facilities, there is a town comfort station

located on the Allen harbor town boat

ramp parking area, and the Saquatucket

Municipal Marina has on-shore

bathroom and shower facilities available

24 hours a day. There are also private

facilities at the Allen Harbor Yacht

Club.

The waste from stationary shore side

pump-out facility at the Saquatucket

Municipal Marina and the pump-out

boat is collected and stored in a

Department of Environmental Protection

approved, 2,500 gallon tigh tank. This

tank is fitted with alarms that activate

in time to ensure waste removal long

before the capacity is reached. The town

of Harwich has an annual agreement

with a licensed waste hauler to pumpout, on demand by the Harbormaster,

and then transport the septage to the

Town of Yarmouth’s Sewage Treatment

Facility. The Town Harwich has a

contract with the Town of Yarmouth for

the use of the Yarmouth-Dennis Septage

Treatment Facility.

There are approximately 753 boats

either moored or docked within Herring

Creek, Allens Harbor, Wychmere Harbor

and Saquatucket Harbor and are

primarily ‘‘parking lot’’ harbors where

the majority of boats are under 27 feet.

Of these 735 boats there are 35

commercial fishing vessels, and an

estimated transient population of 68

vessels.

The resources of the Herring Creek,

Allens Harbor, Wychmere Harbor and

Saquatucket Harbor are recreational and

commercial. Wychmere Harbor is used

by both recreational and commercial

shell fishermen for the harvest of

quahogs, clams, oysters, and bay

scallops. Saquatucket Harbor is also

used by both recreational and

commercial shell fishermen for the

harvest of quahogs, clams, oysters and is

the site of the Town’s commercial

aquaculture operations. The beaches are

located on the contiguous boundary

with Nantucket Sound.

Comments and reviews regarding this

request for action may be filed on or

before July 27, 1998. Such

communications, or requests for

information or a copy of the applicant’s

petition, should be addressed to Ann

Rodney, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency—New England Region, Water

Quality Unit (CWQ), JFK Federal

Building, Boston, MA 02203.

Telephone: 617–565–4885. E-Mail:

RODNEY.ANN@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV.

Dated: June 17, 1998.

John P. DeVillars,

Regional Administrator, Region I.

[FR Doc. 98–16799 Filed 6–25–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6116–3]

National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES) General

Permits for Discharges From

Concentrated Animal Feeding

Operations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed reissuance of

NPDES general permits.

SUMMARY: Proposed reissuance of

NPDES general permits for discharges

from concentrated animal feeding

operations (CAFOs) in (1) EPA Region 6

States of New Mexico (NMG800000),

Oklahoma (OKG800000), and Texas

(TXG800000); (2) all Indian Country

Lands in Oklahoma, Texas, and New

Mexico without certification authority;

and (3) the following Indian Pueblos in

New Mexico that have certification

authority: Pueblo of Isleta, Pueblo of

Nambe, Pueblo of Picuris, Pueblo of

Pojoaque, Pueblo of Sandia, Pueblo of

San Juan, Pueblo of Santa Clara, and

Pueblo of Tesuque.

Also proposed in this action are

watershed-specific NPDES general

permits for CAFOs located in

watersheds that have been impaired by

CAFO-related activities in EPA Region 6

States of (1) New Mexico (NMG810000),

Oklahoma (OKG810000), and Texas

(TXG810000); (2) all Indian Country

lands in Oklahoma, Texas, and New

Mexico without certification authority;

and (3) the following Indian Pueblos in

New Mexico that have certification

authority: Pueblo of Isleta, Pueblo of

Nambe, Pueblo of Picuris, Pueblo of

Pojoaque, Pueblo of Sandia, Pueblo of

San Juan, Pueblo of Santa Clara, and

Pueblo of Tesuque.

EPA Region 6 today proposes to (1)

reissue NPDES general permits

authorizing limited discharges from

CAFOs in New Mexico, Oklahoma, and

Texas; and (2) issue new NPDES general

permits for all CAFOs within these

States that are located in watersheds

impaired by CAFO-related activities.

The permits’ requirements are based on

NPDES regulations (40 CFR Parts 122

and 412). As proposed, the general

permits prohibit discharges of process

wastewater pollutants from CAFOs to

waters of the United States except

during catastrophic or chronic rainfall

events. When effective, these permits

will replace the general permits

published at 58 FR 7610 (February 8,

1993). The requirements of the

watershed-specific permits are designed

to protect nutrient-impaired watersheds

against further degradation and nutrient

pollution resulting from CAFO-related

activities, such as manure and

wastewater land application activities

and offsite land disposal of manure at

rates that exceed crop agronomic

requirements.

DATES: Written comments on this

proposal may be submitted to EPA

Region 6 until August 25, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments to EPA should

be mailed to Ms. Wilma Turner (6WQ–

CA), EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. The public

record is located at the EPA Region 6

office, and is available upon request.

Requests for copies of the public record

should be addressed to Ms. Wilma

Turner at the address provided above. A

reasonable fee may be charged for

copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

further information on the proposed

draft permits or to request for a

complete copy of the entire fact sheet

and draft general permits, contact Ms.

Wilma Turner at the address provided

above or by telephone at (214) 665–

7513. Also, the draft permits and the

fact sheet can be obtained from the

Internet at the following website

address: www.epa.gov/region6/6wq/

npdes/publicnotice.htm.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Hearings

Informal Public Meetings and formal

Public Hearings will be held in New

Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas to

provide information on the draft permit

conditions and to allow for public

comment on the draft permits. Informal

public meetings with question and

answer sessions are scheduled, prior to

each of the formal Public Hearings, to

allow the public to make informal

statements and comments before the

formal Public Hearing sessions begin.

The schedule for informal meetings and

formal public hearings are as follows:

Monday August 3, 1998: Informal

Public Meeting with question and

answer session from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00

a.m., followed by a formal Public

Hearing from 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., in

the Oklahoma/Texas Rooms on the 12th

floor of the EPA office, 1445 Ross

Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733.

Thursday August 13, 1998: Informal

Public Meeting with question and

answer session from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 123 / Friday, June 26, 1998 / Notices 34875

p.m., followed by a formal Public

Hearing from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., in

the Cherokee Room of the Clarion Hotel

and Conference Center, 4345 N. Lincoln

Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73105.

Thursday August 20, 1998: Informal

Public Meeting with question and

answer session from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00

p.m., followed by a formal Public

Hearing from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., in

the Corbett Center Auditorium, Corbett

Center Student Union, New Mexico

State University Campus, South Jordan

Street, P.O. Box 30004, Las Cruces, New

Mexico 88003.

Information in this Notice is organized as

follows:

I. General Statutory and Regulatory

Background

II. Permit Coverage

III. Permit Conditions

IV. Best Management Practices

V. Discharge Monitoring and Reporting

Requirements

VI. Pollution Prevention Plan Requirements

VII. Other Permit Requirements

VIII. Economic Impact

IX. Compliance With Other Federal

Regulations

I. General Statutory and Regulatory

Background

Section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act

(CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1311(a), prohibits the

discharge of pollutants to waters of the

United States in the absence of

authorizing permits, including NPDES

permits. CWA 402, 33 USC 1342,

authorizes EPA (or EPA-approved

states) to issue NPDES permits allowing

such discharges on condition they will

comply with requirements

implementing CWA sections 301, 304,

and 401 (33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314 and

1341). Among those requirements are

effluent limitations reflecting levels of

technological capability, water quality

standards, and other more stringent

requirements states may adopt under

CWA 510, 33 U.S.C. 1370. Violation of

a condition contained in an NPDES

permit, whether an individual or

general permit, is a violation of the Act

and subjects the owner or operator of

the permitted facility to the penalties

specified in section 309 of the Act.

Most NPDES permits EPA issues are

individual permits; i.e., they apply only

to one facility and authorize discharges

of pollutants only from that facility.

EPA may also use ‘‘general permits’’ to

regulate numerous facilities which have

similar discharges and are subject to the

same conditions and limitations within

a geographic area. See 40 CFR 122.28;

NRDC v. Costle, 568 F.2d 1369 (D.C. Cir.

1977). Using general permits conserves

EPA resources and reduces the

paperwork burden associated with

obtaining discharge authorization for

the regulated community. In issuing

general permits, EPA does not use the

procedural rules (40 CFR Part 124) it

uses in individual permitting actions;

instead, it uses procedures that are more

commonly associated with rulemaking,

i.e., publication in the Federal Register.

General permits are not rules, however,

and are subject to the same substantive

requirements that apply to individual

NPDES permits, many of which are

found in 40 CFR Part 122. The draft

CAFO general permits proposed here

are general permits.

To control discharges of

‘‘conventional pollutants’’, such as pH,

biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), oil

and grease, total suspended solids (TSS)

and fecal coliform, CWA 301(b)(1)(E)

requires that NPDES permits include

effluent limitations based on ‘‘best

conventional pollutant control

technology’’ (BCT). To regulate

nonconventional and toxic pollutants,

CWA section 301(b)(2)(A), (C), and (D)

require that NPDES permits include

effluent limitations based on ‘‘best

available technology economically

achievable’’ (BAT), a standard which

generally represents the best performing

existing technology in an industrial

category or sub-category. BAT and BCT

effluent limitations may never be less

stringent than corresponding effluent

limitations based on ‘‘best practicable

control technology currently available’’

(BPT), a standard generally applicable to

similar discharges prior to March 31,

1989, under CWA 301(b)(1)(A).

Frequently, EPA adopts nationally

applicable ‘‘effluent limitations

guidelines’’ identifying the BCT and

BAT standards to which specific

industrial categories and subcategories

are subject. Until such guidelines are

published, however, CWA section

402(a)(1) requires that EPA establish

appropriate BCT and BAT effluent

limitations in its NPDES permitting

actions on the basis of its best

professional judgment (BPJ). As further

explained below, the permits proposed

here include some effluent limitations

based on effluent limitation guidelines

codified at 40 CFR Part 412 and some

limitations based on BPJ.

Pursuant to CWA 301(b)(1)(C), NPDES

permits must include ‘‘water quality

based’’ effluent limitations if BAT and

BCT limitations which would otherwise

be applied are not stringent enough to

avoid discharges causing exceedances of

applicable water quality standards

adopted by states, Indian Tribes, and

sometimes EPA. EPA is proposing

additional requirements for CAFOs

located in watersheds that have been

impaired by CAFO-related activities to

prevent further releases of nutrients,

particularly phosphorus, from

impacting these watersheds.

In addition to effluent limitations,

NPDES permits frequently require that

permittees implement ‘‘best

management practices’’ (BMPs). NPDES

permits may include BMPs to control

toxic pollutants in accordance with

CWA 304(e), when numeric effluent

limitations are infeasible and/or when

reasonably necessary to assure

compliance with effluent limitations or

standards or to carry out the purpose

and intent of CWA. See 40 CFR

122.44(k). As explained below, the

proposed CAFO general permits contain

a number of BMPs.

What are CAFOs? CAFOs are facilities

used to confine animals, including

poultry, for meat, milk, or egg

production, or stabling, in pens or

houses, where the animals are fed or

maintained at the place of confinement.

See 40 CFR 412.11(b).

What pollutants are associated with

CAFOs. The characteristics of waste

from different CAFOs are substantially

similar [Development Document for

Effluent Limitations Guidelines and

New Source Performance Standards for

the Feedlots Point Source Category

(Development Document), January

1974]. The most commonly recognized

contaminants from CAFOs include

biochemical oxygen demand (BOD),

total suspended solids (TSS), organics,

bacteria, and plant nutrients (nitrogen

and phosphorus compounds). EPA

encourages the proper utilization of

such plant nutrients for agricultural

production of crops and forage, but their

improper storage and use may cause

significant harm to the quality of surface

and ground waters. The effluent

limitations and requirements for all

CAFOs covered by these general permits

are intended to avoid water quality

problems.

II. Permit Coverage

Who needs to be covered by these

permits? As noted in Part I.B. of the

draft permits, ‘‘a permit is required for

discharges from operations classified as

CAFOs.’’ All facilities with more than

1000 animal units [or the number and

types of animals specified in 40 CFR

part 122, Appendix B(a)] are eligible for

coverage under the terms of these

permits.

What constitutes a discharge? A

discharge of pollutants is any addition

of any pollutant or combination of

pollutants from a point source to waters

of the United States. See CWA section

502(12); 40 CFR 122.2. This includes,

but is not limited to, contaminated

runoff from corrals, stock piled manure,

or silage piles; overflow from storage
34876 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 123 / Friday, June 26, 1998 / Notices

ponds; overflow from animal watering

systems which are contaminated by

manure; drainage of wastewater from

land application areas; contaminated

runoff from land application fields in

which wastewater is applied at greater

than the agronomic rate, runoff from

fields on which manure has been

applied by placement on or in the soil

if such runoff results in a direct

discharge of manure to waters of the

U.S.; and discharge of wastewater from

retention structures to surface water via

a hydrologic connection. ‘‘Waters of the

United States’’ is a very broad term

(defined at 40 CFR 122.2) which

includes almost all surface water bodies

in the United States.

In accordance with Part II.A of the

draft permits, a CAFO may discharge

waste or process wastewater only when

rainfall events, either chronic or

catastrophic, cause an overflow of

process wastewater from a facility

designed, constructed, and operated to

hold all process wastewater plus the

runoff from a 25-year, 24-hour rainfall

event for the location of the CAFO. All

other discharges are prohibited.

What are AFOs? Not all animal

feeding operations (AFOs) are CAFOs.

Storm water discharges from other types

of animal feeding operations are

generally exempt from NPDES

regulation as point sources by CWA

section 502(14). Discharges from such

facilities may nevertheless be regulated

under state laws.

Parts I.B. and VII.I. of the draft

permits define ‘‘CAFO’’ in accordance

with 40 CFR 122.23 and 40 CFR part

122, Appendix B. For an operation to be

a CAFO, the facility must first qualify as

an animal feeding operation (AFO). A

facility is an AFO if:

(1) Animals are kept onsite for a total

of 45 days or more during any 12-month

period, and (2) crops, vegetation forage

growth, or post-harvest residues are not

sustained on the facility during the

normal growing season.

The first part of this definition means

that animals must be fed or maintained

on the lot or facility for a minimum of

45 days. It does not mean that the same

animals must remain on the lot for 45

days or more; only that some animals

are fed or maintained on the lot 45 days

out of any 12- month period. The 45

days do not have to be consecutive, nor

does the 12-month period have to

correspond to the calendar year. For

example, the 12-month period may be

counted from June 1 to the following

May 31.

The second part of this definition

distinguishes feedlots from pastures;

pastures are not regulated as CAFOs.

Feedlots with constructed floors, such

as solid concrete or metal slats, clearly

satisfy this part of the definition. Other

feedlots may have open dirt areas. These

‘‘open dirt’’ feedlots may have some

vegetation growth along the edges while

animals are present or during months

when animals are kept elsewhere, but

such marginal growth does not render

them pastures. Pastures are themselves

not generally CAFOs, but wastewater

overflows from pastures used as land

application sites for CAFO waste are

discharges and operation of such a site

is subject to the requirements of these

permits.

CAFO Criteria. An AFO is a CAFO if:

(1) It is used to confine more than the

number of animal units listed at 40 CFR

part 122, Appendix B(a) and Part VII.I(a)

of the permit. For example, dairies with

more than 700 mature dairy cows or

feedlots with more than 1000 feeders are

always CAFOs. These large CAFOs are

‘‘new sources’’ and must provide

additional information for EPA to use in

reviewing their operations for

compliance with the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA) before obtaining coverage under

these permits.

(2) It is used to confine the number of

animal units listed in 40 CFR part 122,

Appendix B(b) and Part VII.I(b) of the

permit and it discharges through a

manmade conveyance or discharges

directly to surface waters. Conveyance

of wastewater from the property to

waters of the United States through a

pipe, ditch, lateral, channel gully, etc.,

is a discharge through a manmade

conveyance. Direct discharge occurs

when a stream, creek, wetland or other

water body runs through the facility

where it may contact CAFO waste. If

confined animals have direct access to

such waters, a direct discharge is

presumed. It should be noted that even

intermittent conveyed or direct

discharges render a facility in this

category a CAFO. If an AFO has

discharged in the past and/or may

discharge in the future, it is a CAFO.

(3) It is designated a CAFO by the

Regional Administrator of EPA Region 6

as a significant contributor of pollutants

(SCP) in accordance with 40 CFR

122.23(c)(2). This allows case-by-case

regulation of smaller, problem facilities

which would not otherwise be

considered CAFOs under the criteria

described above. Such designations

occur only after an onsite inspection

and the facility must be notified before

the designation is effective.

What are ‘‘animal units?’’ ‘‘Animal

unit’’ is a term defined in 40 CFR Part

122, Appendix B and the number of

animals constituting a unit varies

according to animal type: one animal is

not always equal to one animal unit.

Conversion to animal units is a

procedure used to determine pollution

equivalents among the different animal

types; one dairy cow produces more

waste than one sheep. Conversion to

animal units is also used in determining

whether facilities with more than one

animal type onsite are CAFOs. Animal

units are incorporated in the CAFO

criteria described above. Facilities with

greater than 1000 animal units (large

facilities) are CAFOs. Facilities with

between 300 and 1000 animal units

(medium-sized facilities) that discharge

through a man-made conveyance or

discharge directly into waters of the

United States are also CAFOs.

Is there an exception to CAFO status?

40 CFR Part 122, Appendix B excludes

AFOs which discharge only during a 25-

year, 24-hour or greater storm event

from CAFO status. Experience has

shown that this exclusion has little

practical effect, however. Even a facility

properly designed to retain all the storm

water generated by that statistical storm

event plus all the waste accumulated at

the facility may have to discharge as a

result of less but longer duration storm

events. It is also very difficult to show

that a 25-year, 24-hour storm event has

actually occurred at most AFOs. Unless

it is authorized to discharge by an

NPDES permit, even a properly

designed and operated facility may thus

be subject to enforcement action under

CWA. See Carr v. Alta Verde Industries,

931 F.3d 1055 (5th Cir. 1991).

How do CAFOs obtain coverage under

these general permits? Facility operators

must submit a ‘‘Notice of Intent (NOI) to

be covered’’ to obtain discharge

authorization under these general

permits to EPA Region 6 and to any

State/Tribal agency with regulatory

jurisdiction over the CAFO. See 40 CFR

122.28(b)(i). NOI submission

requirements are outlined in Part I.E. of

the permits.

Who is eligible for coverage? Facilities

with 1,000 animal units or the number

and types of animals specified in 40

CFR part 122, Appendix B(a) are eligible

for coverage under these draft permits.

Specific coverage requirements for

existing, new, and expanding CAFOs

are specified in Part I.C (1), (2), and(3)

of the proposed general permits. Offsite

operators wanting to dispose of manure

at rates that exceed phosphorus

agronomic needs of crops in impaired

watersheds must apply for separate

permit coverage in accordance with Part

I.C (4) of the watershed-specific draft

permits.

Are there limitations on obtaining

permit coverage? In accordance with 40

CFR 122.28, EPA may determine that
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 123 / Friday, June 26, 1998 / Notices 34877

providing coverage under a general

permit is inappropriate for a particular

CAFO and EPA may require such a

facility to apply for an individual

NPDES permit. Such an individual

permit might be required, for example,

to assure that applicable water quality

standards are protected by imposing

additional conditions on authorized

discharges. Part I.F of the draft permits

lists circumstances in which an

individual permit (instead of a general

permit) may be appropriate.

EPA conducts a NEPA review of all

new CAFOs with more than 1000 AUs

before providing them coverage under

the CAFO NPDES general permit. The

operator of such a proposed facility

must submit an environmental

information document to EPA with its

NOI. EPA will then conduct a NEPA

review to determine whether to provide

permit coverage for the proposed

facility. EPA’s decision will be subject

to public participation and

documentation. Permittees must obtain

documentation of the Agency’s final

NEPA decision (e.g., a record of

decision or finding of no significant

impact) before operating the CAFO and

must maintain that documentation

onsite.

New CAFOs that will be located

within one mile of the Texas Coastal

Zone Management Area are not eligible

for coverage under the proposed

permits. Such CAFOs must apply for

individual permits.

When will these permits expire? Since

the terms of all NPDES permits are

limited to five years, pursuant to CWA

section 402(b)(1)(B) and 40 CFR

122.46(a), these permits will expire five

years after they are issued. If the permits

are not reissued before they expire,

however, discharge authorization for

CAFOs which obtained coverage before

the expiration date will continue until

the agency makes final decision on

reissuance.

III. Permit Conditions

Today, EPA is proposing to reissue

general permits originally issued on

February 3, 1993 (see 58 FR 7610). Most

of the effluent limitations and

conditions of the reissued draft permits

are the same ones contained in those

original permits and are based on the

same factors considered and described

in the 1993 final publication. Though

these ‘‘carryover’’ conditions of the draft

permits are nevertheless subject to

reconsideration in this action, EPA may

impose less stringent conditions only

for reasons listed at CWA section 402(o)

and 40 CFR 122.44(l). Some new recordkeeping requirements have been added

to the draft permits to better assure

compliance with the effluent limitations

and BMPs of the permits.

EPA is also proposing to issue

watershed-specific general permits for

all CAFOs located in watersheds that

have been impaired by CAFO-related

activities. The watershed-specific

general permits include requirements

that are designed to protect the impaired

watersheds against further degradation

resulting from manure and wastewater

land application fields.

The following water bodies and

associated watersheds have been

impaired by CAFO-related activities and

have been reported to EPA by the States

of Oklahoma and Texas in accordance

with Section 303(d) of the Clean Water

Act:

State Segment no. Segment name

Texas .................................................................. 1255 .................................................................... Upper North Bosque River.

Oklahoma ............................................................ OK120400010060 .............................................. Arkansas River.

OK220200020010 .............................................. Arkansas River.

OK120400010010 .............................................. Arkansas River.

OK621010010160 .............................................. Arkansas River, Salt Fork.

OK121700020310 .............................................. Baron Fork.

OK121700050010 .............................................. Baron Fork.

OK121700050170 .............................................. Baron Fork.

OK121700060040 .............................................. Battle Creek.

OK311210000010 .............................................. Beaver Creek.

OK410600010010 .............................................. Blue Ridge.

OK410600020010 .............................................. Blue Ridge.

OK220100030010 .............................................. Brazil Creek.

OK520600010010 .............................................. Canadian River.

OK121600030360 .............................................. Carey Bay, Grand Lake.

OK121600030340 .............................................. Cave Springs Branch.

OK121600030220 .............................................. Chigger Cove, Grand Lake.

OK620920020010 .............................................. Cimmaron River.

OK120410010100 .............................................. Cloud Creek.

OK310830060010 .............................................. Cobb Creek.

OK121600030260 .............................................. Court House Hollow Cove, Grand Lake.

OK520620010080 .............................................. Deer Creek.

OK520620060010 .............................................. Deer Creek.

OK121600030300 .............................................. Dillar Cove.

OK121600030080 .............................................. Duck Creek Cove, Grand Lake.

OK620920040010 .............................................. Eagle Chief Creek.

OK121600030350 .............................................. Echo Bay, Grand Lake.

OK121600050070 .............................................. Eucha Lake.

OK121600070110 .............................................. Fivemile Creek.

OK121700060010 .............................................. Flint Creek.

OK220100040010 .............................................. Fourche Maline Creek.

OK410210080010 .............................................. Glover Creek.

OK621010010020 .............................................. Great Salt Plains Lake.

OK121600030170 .............................................. Horse Creek Cove.

OK121700030010 .............................................. Illinois River.

OK121700030080 .............................................. Illinois River.

OK121700030280 .............................................. Illinois River.

OK121700030350 .............................................. Illinois River.

OK310820010160 .............................................. Ionine Creek.

OK310820010200 .............................................. Ionine Creek East.
34878 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 123 / Friday, June 26, 1998 / Notices

State Segment no. Segment name

OK310820010210 .............................................. Ionine Creek West.

OK410310010020 .............................................. Jackfork Creek.

OK410300010010 .............................................. Kiamichi River.

OK410300020010 .............................................. Kiamichi River.

OK310830060040 .............................................. Lake Creek.

OK121600030020 .............................................. Lake O’ of the Cherokees (Grand).

OK121600030060 .............................................. Lake O’ of the Cherokees (Grand).

OK121600030290 .............................................. Lake O’ of the Cherokees, Honey Creek.

OK121600030150 .............................................. Lake O’ of the Cherokees, Lower Middle.

OK121600030280 .............................................. Lake O’ of the Cherokees, Middle.

OK311210000050 .............................................. Little Beaver Creek.

OK121600070120 .............................................. Little Fivemile Creek.

OK410210020010 .............................................. Little River.

OK410400050010 .............................................. Muddy Boggy Creek.

OK121600030010 .............................................. Neosho (Grand) River.

OK121600030050 .............................................. Neosho (Grand) River.

OK121600030140 .............................................. Neosho (Grand) River.

OK121600030270 .............................................. Neosho (Grand) River.

OK620910040260 .............................................. Northwood Lake.

OK121700050120 .............................................. Peacheater Creek.

OK220100020010 .............................................. Poteau River.

OK121600050150 .............................................. Spavinaw Creek.

OK620900040010 .............................................. Stillwater Creel.

OK310800010050 .............................................. Texoma Lake, Washita.

OK620910020030 .............................................. Turkey Creek.

OK620910060010 .............................................. Turkey Creek.

OK310800020010 .............................................. Washita River.

OK310820010010 .............................................. Washita River.

OK310830010010 .............................................. Washita River.

OK310830020010 .............................................. Washita River.

OK310830030010 .............................................. Washita River.

EPA is requesting comments from the

public on whether the watershedspecific general permits should be

applicable to all nutrient-impaired

watersheds irrespective of the source of

the nutrients.

Effluent limitations. Part II.A of the

draft permits prohibits discharges of

CAFO wastewater except as a result of

catastrophic or chronic rainfall events.

This ‘‘no discharge’’ effluent limitation

is based on the effluent limitations

guidelines for the feedlot category

promulgated at 39 FR 5704 (February

14, 1994) and codified at 40 CFR Part

412. CWA § 402(a)(1)(A) requires that

EPA include this limitation in NPDES

permits for CAFOs with more than

1,000 animal units. In the 1993 permit

proceedings, EPA Region 6 found it

appropriate to apply the same effluent

limitations to smaller CAFOs on the

basis of BPJ exercised under CWA

Section 402(a)(1)(B).

Under the ‘‘no discharge’’ effluent

limitation, permitted CAFOs may

discharge only during catastrophic or

chronic rainfall conditions. A

catastrophic event is generally

equivalent to a 25-year, 24-hour storm

event, but may also include tornadoes,

hurricanes, or other catastrophic

conditions that would cause an

overflow from a properly designed and

operated waste retention structure.

Chronic rainfall is a series of wet

weather conditions that preclude

dewatering of properly maintained

retention structures.

In most cases, the technology to

achieve the ‘‘no discharge’’ limit is

containment of all contaminated liquid

runoff resulting from rainfall and

subsequent application of these liquids,

along with the generated solid wastes, to

productive crop land at agronomic rate,

i.e., a rate which will provide adequate

moisture and nutrients that can be

utilized by the crops. To implement this

technology requires a wastewater

retention structure, such as a lagoon,

and provisions for land application of

the wastes to cropland, such as

sprinklers.

Part II.B(1) of the draft permits

prohibits the discharge of process

wastewater from retention structures to

waters of the United States by means of

a hydrologic connection through ground

water. This prohibition is required to

assure compliance with the ‘‘no

discharge’’ effluent limitation and the

purposes of CWA. Different federal

courts have reached different

conclusions on whether EPA may

regulate such discharges, but the EPA

Region 6 position is reflected by such

cases as Quivera Mining Co. v. USEPA,

765F. 2d 126(10th Cir. 1985); McClellan

Ecological Seepage v. Weinberger, 707

F. Supp. 1182, 1194 (E.D. Cal. 1988);

Sierra Club v. Colorado Refining Co.,

Civ. No. CIV.A.93–K–1713 (D. Col. Dec.

8, 1993). Although this prohibition on

discharging through a groundwater

connection is included in the broader

‘‘no discharge’’ limitation at Part II.A of

the draft permits, Region 6 also includes

it separately at Part II.B(1) to make its

intentions clear in this area.

The control of discharges through

hydrologic connection is best handled

in the design phase of the control

facility. The draft NPDES general

permits require the use of procedures

recommended by the Natural Resource

Conservation Service of the U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USDA–

NRCS) when designing control facilities.

Installation of liners is required as a part

of facility construction.

Part II.B(2) of the draft permits

prohibits the discharge of contaminated

runoff or drainage of land applied

wastewater from land application areas

to waters of the United States.

Wastewater must not be applied at such

a rate or under conditions that it runs

off from the application fields to waters

of the U.S. Wastewater may not, for

example, be applied when the soil is

saturated or frozen. Where processgenerated wastewater is used for

irrigation of crops, application rates

shall not exceed the nutrient uptake of

the crops being produced on the land

application areas.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 123 / Friday, June 26, 1998 / Notices 34879

Part II.B(3) of the draft permits

prohibits the discharge of contaminated

runoff from land application areas

where manure has been placed on the

soil surface, if such runoff will result in

a direct discharge of pollutants to waters

of the United States. Manure should be

incorporated into the soil to minimize

runoff, and edge-of-field grass strips

should be used to separate water

courses from runoff. Timing and rate of

application must be in response to crop

needs, weather conditions, and soil

conditions. Manure will not be applied

to land when the ground is frozen or

saturated or during rainfall.

Part II.B(4) of the watershed-specific

draft permits prohibits the direct

discharge of contaminated runoff from

offsite land disposal areas where

manure is land applied at rates that

exceed phosphorus agronomic rates.

Operators of facilities that intend to

land apply CAFO-generated manure or

wastewater offsite at non-agronomic

rates must submit a separate NOI for

coverage under these permits.

IV. Best Management Practices

Part II.D of the draft permits requires

that all permittees develop and

implement site-specific BMPs

specifically designed to assure

compliance with the permits’ ‘‘no

discharge’’ limitations. There are two

types of BMPs that must be

implemented by all CAFOs: those BMPs

for management and control of wastes

and wastewaters generated at the animal

confinement and maintenance areas of

the CAFO, and BMPs for properly

disposing of waste/wastewater by land

application at rates based on agronomic

needs of crops. The BMP requirements

for the confinement and maintenance

areas and land application areas are

described below.

1. BMPs for Animal Confinement and

Maintenance Areas

Part II.D(1) of the draft permits

includes a description of BMPs for (1)

minimizing wastewater volumes

generated from animal confinement and

maintenance areas, (2) management of

precipitation runoff from animal

confinement and maintenance areas,

and (3) ensuring that control structures

for wastewater containment are

adequately designed, constructed,

operated, and maintained. The

following are the BMPs that must be

implemented at the animal confinement

and maintenance areas: (1) all control

structures must be designed,

constructed, operated, and maintained

to contain all process-generated

wastewaters plus the runoff from a 25-

year, 24-hour rainfall event for the

particular location of the CAFO;

calculations must include allowances

for surface retention, infiltration, and

other site-specific factors; (2)

wastewater control and retention

structures or holding pens for new

CAFOs may not be located in the 100-

year flood plain; wastewater control and

retention structures or holding pens for

existing CAFOs that are located within

the 100-year flood plain must be

protected by berms to prevent

inundation and damage that may occur

during that flood event; (3) CAFOs must

not expand their operations prior to

expanding their retention control

structures or holding pens; (4) no waters

of the U.S. shall come into direct

contact with animals confined on the

CAFO; open lots must 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-

hour rainfall event occurs; (5) CAFOrelated activities must not cause water

quality impairment to public or private

drinking water wells; waste handling,

treatment, and management shall not

create an environmental or a public

health hazard and shall conform with

State/Tribal guidelines and/or

regulations for the protection of surface

water quality; (6) potentially hazardous

or toxic chemicals shall be handled and

disposed of in a manner such as to

prevent pollutants from entering the

waters of the U.S.; (7) all discharges to

containment structures shall be

composed entirely of wastewaters from

the proper operation of a CAFO and the

precipitation runoff from the CAFO

areas; (8) dead animals must be

disposed of in a manner to prevent

contamination of waters of the U.S. or

create a public health hazard; and (9)

appropriate measures necessary to

prevent spills and to clean up spills of

any toxic pollutants shall be taken; any

spills that may occur must be reported

to EPA and State/Tribal agencies as

specified in Parts III.A and IV.D of the

draft permits.

2. BMPs for Onsite Land Application of

Waste/Wastewater

(a) Introduction

Numerous studies have shown that

continued land application of manure at

rates based on nitrogen agronomic rates

results in a build up of soil phosphorus

levels (Sharpley, et al, 1994). A recent

publication by the USDA–NRCS and

EPA (Lander et. al., 1998) indicates that

AFOs produce more manure nutrients

(nitrogen and phosphorus) than can be

utilized by crops in many parts of the

U.S., suggesting that there is a potential

for nutrients, particularly phosphorus,

to accumulate in soils and eventually

impact the surrounding water bodies.

Information submitted to EPA Region 6,

in accordance with Section 303(d) of the

CWA and recent studies conducted by

the Texas Institute for Applied

Environmental Research (TIAER)

indicate that many watersheds in

Region 6 have been impaired by CAFOrelated activities. For example, the

surface water monitoring study

conducted by TIAER (1997) showed a

strong correlation between the

concentration of phosphorus in the

upper North Bosque River and the

acreage of land application fields in the

watershed, upstream of the surface

water monitoring stations. Based on

these data, the TIAER report concluded

that the upper North Bosque River

watershed in Erath County, Texas, has

been impaired by land application

activities.

EPA’s objective, as specified in a

recent draft of the EPA Strategy for

AFOs which was released in March

1998, is to include adequate controls in

NPDES permits to reduce the quantities

of nutrients entering water bodies.

Several EPA Region 6 States, including

Texas and Oklahoma, have already

established soil phosphorus

concentration limits in their State

permits for CAFOs as a means of

controlling nutrient pollution. Texas, for

example, has established a critical soil

phosphorus concentration of 200 mg/kg

above which manure must be applied

based on phosphorus agronomic rates.

Research has demonstrated that a

concentration of about 200 mg/kg

phosphorus in the surface soil is the

critical level above which the

concentration of phosphorus in the

runoff becomes environmentally

significant. Sharpley and others (1996)

demonstrated that a soil phosphorus

concentration of 200 mg/kg (as

determined by the Mehlich 3 Method)

resulted in a phosphorus concentration

of 1,000 micrograms per liter in the

runoff. According to Wood (1998), the

proposed allowable dissolved

phosphorus limit for agricultural runoff

is 1000 micrograms per liter.

Another approach for determining

when to switch from the nitrogen-based

manure application rate to a

phosphorus-based rate is to determine

the percentage of phosphorus saturation

in the land application area soil. Dutch

scientists have demonstrated that a soil

phosphorus saturation of 25% is the

critical level above which the

phosphorus concentration in the soil is

considered to be environmentally

unacceptable, because at this

concentration, the concentration of
34880 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 123 / Friday, June 26, 1998 / Notices

phosphorus in the runoff increases and

may exceed 1,000 micrograms per liter.

The phosphorus saturation index

provides an indication of how much of

the phosphorus sorption capacity of a

particular land application area soil has

been used up.

Hence, the phosphorus saturation

measurement provides information on

both the potential of a soil to enrich

runoff with dissolved phosphorus (high

degree of phosphorus saturation) and

also helps to predict how much of the

phosphorus added to the land

application area soil as manure may be

retained by the soil in a form that is

relatively resistant to be released into

the runoff (low degree of phosphorus

saturation). However, the procedures for

determining the soil phosphorus

saturation percentage have not been

widely tested in the United States.

The USDA–NRCS is currently

developing a procedure for identifying

environmentally sensitive land

application fields that could promote

phosphorus enrichment in water bodies

when manure or wastewater is applied

to such fields (Lemunyon and Gilbert,

1993). The USDA–NRCS procedure uses

site-specific characteristics of the land

application site, including (1) potential

soil erosion rates, potential runoff, soil

phosphorus concentration, and (2)

manure management practices (i.e.,

application rates and application

methods) to assess the capacity of the

land application site to adsorb the

phosphorus and prevent it from

impacting any surrounding water

bodies. However, before the USDA–

NRCS completes its research, EPA

Region 6 is proposing, as specified in

Part II.D(2)(d) of the watershed-specific

general permits, that rates of manure

application in impaired watersheds be

based on phosphorus agronomic

requirements of crops. Also, EPA Region

6 is proposing to regulate offsite

disposal of manure by land application

at rates that exceed phosphorus needs of

crops as specified in Part II.D(4) of the

watershed-specific general permits.

(b) Waste Management Plan

Part II.D(2) of the draft permits

requires all CAFOs that dispose of

wastes by land application to develop

and implement a waste management

plan as specified in Part II.D(2). All

wastes, including Solids, sludges,

manure, and other pollutants generated

at the facility shall be managed and

disposed of in accordance with

procedures specified in such a sitespecific waste management plan. Each

waste management plan shall describe

the methods for, and account for, the

disposal of all manure and wastewater

generated by the facility. If the proposed

methods of disposal include onsite or

offsite land application of manure and

wastewater, the facility must develop a

site-specific nutrient utilization plan as

described in Part II.D(2)(b).

(c) Nutrient Utilization Plan

If the waste management plan

developed by the CAFO provides for

land application of the manure and

wastewater generated at the facility, the

permittee must develop and implement

a nutrient utilization plan to minimize

release of nutrients into waters of the

U.S. Such a plan must include the

following information: (1) a site map

showing the proposed land application

areas, including the major soil types

within the proposed land application

areas; (2) crop rotations to be

implemented during the permit term; (3)

methods and procedures for analyzing

nutrients in the land application area

soils, manure, and wastewater; (4)

predicted yield goals for the particular

crops that will be grown; (5) procedures

for calculating nutrient budgets that

must be used to determine waste

application rates based on phosphorus

crop needs; equipment to be used

during land application of manure and

wastewater and the procedures for

inspecting and maintaining such

equipment; (6) projected rates and

timing of application of the manure and

wastewater as well as other sources of

nutrients that may be applied to the

land application areas to supplement

the manure.

The permittee must maintain records

of the actual rates and dates of

application of the manure, wastewater,

or other nutrients applied to the land

application areas throughout the entire

permit term. If the manure and

wastewater are to be sold or given away

or disposed of in areas that are not

described in the facility’s nutrient

utilization plan, the facility must keep

records of landowner agreements for the

lands that will receive the manure and

wastewater, and the nutrient contents of

the manure and wastewater applied to

such lands.

The nutrient utilization plan must

include (1) specific details for nutrient

sampling and testing of the land

application soils, manure, and

wastewater [Part II.D(2)(c)], and (2) the

basis and procedures for determining

agronomic rates of manure and

wastewater application rates [Part

II.D(2)(b)].

Existing CAFOs must develop and

implement a nutrient utilization plan

within one year following reissuance of

the CAFO general permit. New CAFOs

must develop and implement a nutrient

utilization plan immediately following

reissuance of the CAFO general permit.

Designated CAFOs must develop and

implement a nutrient utilization plan

within two years following designation.

(d) Nutrient Sampling and Testing

Each permittee must conduct

analytical tests to determine the nutrient

contents of the (1) manure and

wastewater generated by the facility,

and (2) soils within the land application

areas prior to the first land application

event at new CAFOs and the first

seasonal land application event at

existing facilities, then once per quarter

thereafter. Frequencies can be increased

when significant variations in nutrient

levels are experienced at a facility

between sampling events, or if there are

identified or suspected water quality

standards violations. The permittee

must then compare the nutrient

contents of the manure and wastewater

with the nutrient contents of the land

application area soils to determine the

needed fertility and application rates for

pasture production or production of

other targeted crop yields. The

permittee must maintain records of all

nutrient sampling and analyses data,

calculations, application rates and

utilized acreage of the land application

area.

(e) Basis for Determining Agronomic

Rates Outside of Impaired Watersheds

According to Part II.D(2)(d) of the

draft CAFO general permits, manure

and wastewater application rates must

be based on agronomic crop

requirements for nitrogen or

phosphorus, as determined from results

of nutrient sampling and testing.

Application rates should be based on

nitrogen until the concentration of

phosphorus in the soil increases to the

critical (threshold) level established by

the State/Tribe in which the CAFO is

located or by the USDA–NRCS. Once

the phosphorus threshold is reached,

the application rate must be based on

phosphorus requirements of the crop.

The threshold phosphorus holding

capacity of the soil is the maximum

concentration of phosphorus in the soil

that will not create an unacceptable risk

of water quality impairment. The CAFO

operator must use the approach outlined

below for determining agronomic rates

of waste/wastewater application:

(i) Apply manure and wastewater at

rates based on the agronomic crop needs

of nitrogen if soil tests demonstrate that

the concentration of phosphorus in the

surface soil (0 to 6 inch-depth) is or will

be consistently below the threshold

level established by the State/Tribe

during the permit term. The threshold
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 123 / Friday, June 26, 1998 / Notices 34881

soil phosphorus level for Texas is 200

mg/kg, as determined by using

procedures developed by Texas A&M

University. If there is no threshold soil

phosphorus concentration limit

established by the State/Tribe or the

USDA–NRCS, then continue to apply

manure/wastewater at rates based on

nitrogen requirements of crops.

(ii) Apply manure and wastewater at

rates based on the agronomic crop needs

of phosphorus if soil tests demonstrate

that the concentration of phosphorus in

the surface soil exceeds the threshold

level recommended by the State/Tribe

where the CAFO is located.

(iii) If soil tests indicate that the soil

phosphorus concentration will exceed

the threshold phosphorus level during

the permit term, the permittee should

begin to seek access to additional

cropland or make other adjustments that

are necessary to comply with the

phosphorus limit established by the

State/Tribe in which the CAFO is

located.

(f) Basis for Determining Agronomic

Rates in Impaired Watersheds

As specified in Part II.D(2)(d) of the

watershed-specific general permits,

manure and wastewater must be land

applied at rates based on phosphorus

agronomic requirements of crops to

minimize risks of further water quality

impairments due to phosphorus. The

CAFO operator must develop and

implement a phosphorus nutrient

budgeting system to monitor and

balance the quantities of manure

phosphorus added to the soil and those

removed in the harvestable portions of

the crops produced on the land

application areas during the growing

season. The quantities of the

phosphorus added to the land

application area as manure should be

approximately equal to the quantities of

phosphorus removed in the harvestable

portions of the crops if the CAFO

operator is applying the manure at

phosphorus agronomic requirements of

the crops being produced on the land

application areas.

3. Offsite Land Application

According to Part II.D(3) of both the

reissued draft permits and the proposed

watershed-specific draft general

permits, offsite land application of

manure at agronomic rates is not

regulated. However, whenever CAFOgenerated manure is to be sold or given

away for offsite disposal by land

application at agronomic rates, the

CAFO operator must provide current

and accurate manure testing data that

can be used by the offsite applicator to

establish agronomic rates of manure

application. The CAFO operator must

provide information to the offsite

applicator concerning the voluntary

measures and procedures for applying

the manure based on agronomic rates.

The CAFO operator should obtain, from

the offsite applicator, information

concerning the location and acreage of

the proposed offsite land application

areas. The CAFO operator must keep all

records, including the information

provided by the offsite applicator, the

dates, and the quantities of the manure

sold or given away. These records must

be kept at the facility. The CAFO

operator must provide this information

to the Director whenever requested.

4. Offsite Disposal of Waste/Wastewater

at Non-Agronomic Rates

When CAFO-generated manure or

wastewater is land applied offsite at

non-agronomic rates, i.e., rates that

exceed phosphorus agronomic

requirements of crops, pollutants are

likely to be discharged to waters of the

United States as precipitation runoff.

CAFO operators and third-party

operators of privately owned treatment

works that land apply CAFO-generated

manure or wastewater offsite at nonagronomic rates are, therefore, required

to obtain permit coverage as specified in

Part I.C.(4) of the general permits for

CAFOs in impaired watersheds, unless

they certify that the manure/wastewater

will be applied at rates based on

phosphorus agronomic requirements of

crops and that the agronomic rates will

be calculated by using a nutrient

budgeting system.

5. Pollution Prevention Plan (PPP)

A site-specific PPP that includes a

manure management plan, and a

nutrient utilization plan must be

developed by each CAFO. Each PPP

must describe measures and practices to

assure compliance with the limitations

and conditions of this permit. Large

CAFOs with more than 1000 animal

units must have, on site, and must

implement a PPP immediately following

the effective date of the proposed

general permits. Medium-size CAFOs

with less than 1000 animal units shall

have, on site, and must implement a

PPP immediately following the effective

date of the general permits. Small

CAFOs (with less than 300 animal units)

that have been designated by EPA as

CAFOs shall have, on site, and must

implement a PPP within one year

following designation.

V. Discharge Monitoring and Reporting

Requirements

Monitoring and discharge

requirements are included in Part III of

the draft permits. Monitoring data serve

a number of functions under the NPDES

program. Discharge monitoring data can

be used to assist in the evaluation of the

risk of the discharge by indicating the

types and the concentrations of

pollutant parameters in the discharge.

Discharge monitoring data can be used

in evaluating the potential of the

discharge to cause or contribute to water

quality impacts and water quality

standards violations.

Discharge monitoring data can also be

used to evaluate the effectiveness of

controls on reducing pollutants in

discharges. This function of monitoring

can be important in evaluating the

effectiveness of source control or

pollution prevention measures as well

as evaluating the operation of end-ofpipe treatment units. Where numeric or

toxicity effluent limits are incorporated

into permits, discharge monitoring data

play a critical role by providing EPA

and authorized NPDES States with data

to evaluate compliance with effluent

limits. The use of discharge monitoring

data to determine permit compliance

greatly enhances the ability of EPA and

authorized NPDES States to enforce

permit conditions.

Permits for industrial process

discharges and discharges from POTWs

traditionally have incorporated numeric

and/or toxicity effluent limitations as

permit conditions. Monitoring reports

for these discharges provide a direct

indication of whether the discharge

complies with permit conditions.

However, the proposed general permits

for CAFOs will require no discharge of

pollutants into waters of the U.S.

Therefore, monitoring data will be

required only in case of a discharge

from the retention system.

1. Discharge Notification

If there is a discharge, Part II.A of the

draft permits requires the permittee to

notify the Director and the State/Tribe

within 24 hours of the discharge from

the retention facility, and to provide a

written notification to the Director and

the State/Tribe within 14 working days

of the discharge. The standard

notification requirements are specified

in 40 CFR 122.44(i), 122.41(l)(4), and

122.41(l)(6). A copy of the notification

must be kept together with the PPP. The

discharge notification report should

include the following:

(a) Description of the Discharge

A description and cause of the

discharge, including an estimate of the

discharge volume; the period of

discharge, including exact dates and

times, and, if not corrected, the

anticipated time the discharge is
34882 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 123 / Friday, June 26, 1998 / Notices

expected to continue, and steps being

taken to reduce, eliminate and prevent

recurrence of the discharge; and if

caused by a precipitation event,

information from the facility and the

nearest National Weather Service station

concerning the size and duration of the

precipitation event.

(b) Analysis of the Discharge

The discharge must be analyzed for

all conventional pollutants associated

with feedlot operation, including pH,

biochemical oxygen demand (BOD),

total suspended solids (TSS), oil and

grease, and fecal coliform as well as

nonconventional pollutants, including

nutrients such as phosphorus and

nitrogen. High numbers of Fecal

Coliform bacteria are an indicator of the

amount of pathogenic bacteria that are

being discharged to the receiving water.

TSS is a common pollutant found in

discharges that can have significant

impacts on receiving waters. The

biochemical oxygen demand

measurement will help the permitting

authority evaluate the oxygen depletion

potential of the discharge. Five day

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5) is

the most commonly used indicator of

oxygen demand. The pH will provide

important information on the potential

availability of metals to the receiving

flora, fauna, and sediment. In some

cases it will provide information

regarding material management. In

addition to conventional pollutants,

nutrients, such as total phosphorus,

total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), and

nitrate plus nitrite nitrogen must be

measured because nutrients can

significantly impact water quality.

Measurements taken for the purpose of

monitoring shall be representative of the

monitored discharge. Discharge

monitoring and reporting requirements

also include the need to monitor for any

pollutants the facility uses or stores on

site which have a potential to be in the

discharge; for example, frequently used

cleaning agents and pesticides.

2. Discharge Reporting Requirements

All discharge information and data

shall be made available to the Director

upon request as specified in Part III.B of

the draft permits. Signed copies of

monitoring reports shall be submitted to

EPA and the State/Tribe, if requested.

Signatory requirements are specified in

Part III.H of the draft permits. Penalties

for falsification of data are specified in

Part III.C of the draft permits. The

permittee shall retain copies of all

records of discharge monitoring for at

least three years from the date reported

as specified in Part III.D of the draft

permit.

The permittee must also notify EPA

and the State/Tribe within 30 days of a

change in facility ownership or

operational control. The permittee must

give advance notice to the Director of

any planned changes in the permitted

facility or activity which may result in

noncompliance with permit

requirements. The permittee must also

report all instances of noncompliance

within 24 hours to the Director and

State/Tribe in accordance with the

notification requirements of these draft

permits. The draft general permits have

an ‘‘adverse climatic conditions’’

provision in Part III.A(b) allowing a

discharger to submit a description of

why samples could not be collected (in

lieu of sampling data) 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 flooding, high winds, hurricane,

tornadoes, and electrical storms.

The requirements for the type of

samples taken vary, depending on the

nature of the retention structure. A

minimum of one grab sample must be

taken to characterize discharges from

overflow structures, such as ponds or

other impoundments.

CAFOs are not required to submit

discharge monitoring reports unless

specifically requested by the Director.

However, these facilities must maintain

records of sampling data collected

during the term of the permit as

specified in Part III.D of the draft

permits. The permittee is required to

retain records of all monitoring

information, copies of all reports

required by these permits, and records

of all data for a period of at least three

years from the date of the measurement,

report, or application. This period may

be extended by the Director.

VI. Pollution Prevention Plan

Requirements

Part VI of the draft permits includes

requirements for pollution prevention

plans (PPPs). Each CAFO covered by the

draft general permits must prepare,

retain, and implement a PPP developed

to allow the implementation of sitespecific measures for controlling

pollutants associated with CAFOs. At a

minimum, the following requirements

should be addressed in the PPP to

reduce pollutants in runoff from the

facility: (1) Identification of potential

pollutant sources, (2) waste

management controls, (3) employee

training, (4) inspection and

recordkeeping, (5) preventive

maintenance, (6) discharge reporting

and notification procedures, (7)

housekeeping procedures, (8)

sedimentation and erosion prevention

measures, and (9) spill response

procedures. The key elements of the

PPP are described below:

(a) Identification of Pollutant Sources

PPPs must be based on an accurate

understanding of the pollution potential

of the site. The first part of the plan

requires an evaluation of the potential

sources of pollution at the site. The

permittee must identify all activities

and significant materials which may

potentially be significant pollutant

sources. The PPP must include a site or

topographic map showing the drainage

pattern at the facility; arrows indicating

the direction of surface water flow from

the facility; each existing structure to

control precipitation runoff; and surface

water bodies which could receive the

runoff.

(b) Wastewater Retention Facilities

The permittee shall keep

documentation at the facility supporting

the adequacy of waste management

control structures used to contain

wastewaters and storm waters from the

animal confinement and maintenance

areas. The documentation must include

all calculations used to support design,

construction, and the size of retention

structures, as well as all factors and

calculations used in determining land

application rates, acreage, and crops.

This documentation may be developed

by the NRCS or a professional

consultant. This information will allow

the EPA to determine if the containment

structure is adequately designed to

contain the required 25-year, 24-hour

storm event and whether waste is being

land applied at agronomic rates. CAFOs

located in impaired watersheds must

provide additional waste/wastewater

retention capacity to protect water

quality. All CAFOs in impaired

watersheds must redesign their

retention structures to include a top

freeboard of three feet and in no case the

top freeboard must not be less than two

feet.

(c) Liner Requirement

In general, surface water flow in most

of EPA Region 6 States is sustained

throughout much of the year by ground

water inflow. As a result, contaminants

from containment structures may leak

into the ground water and eventually

move toward local streams and rivers.

Therefore, the permittee must maintain,

on site, documentation indicating that

no hydrologic connection exists

between the contained wastewater and

surface waters of the United States. The

permittee is given two options to
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 123 / Friday, June 26, 1998 / Notices 34883

demonstrate the lack of hydrologic

connection: (1) Document that there can

be no significant leakage from the

retention structure; or (2) document that

leakage from the retention structure

would not migrate to surface waters.

These two options allow the permittee

to take into account the natural situation

beneath the retention structure (such as

natural materials or isolated ground

waters). Man made connections from

ground waters to surface waters via

wells and irrigation must be taken into

account when determining hydraulic

connections. If the permittee cannot

document the absence of a hydrologic

connection, the containment structure

must have a liner (constructed of either

man-made or natural materials or a

combination of the two) which will

prevent the potential contamination of

surface waters. Liners for retention

structures should be constructed in

accordance with good engineering

practices and must be certified by a

certified professional scientist with

knowledge and experience in

hydrogeology. Liner maintenance shall

include inspection at least once every

two years. Liner design may be in

accordance with a NRCS plan.

Although the requirement in these

draft permits for liner installation is to

protect surface waters, the permittee is

strongly encouraged to provide a liner

for any containment structures to

comply with existing Federal, State or

Tribal regulations for ground water

protection.

(d) Manure and Pond Solids Handling

and Land Application

Requirements of the draft permits and

the PPP do not allow the storage of

wastes where there is the potential for

inadvertent release to any surface water.

Storage areas cannot be placed so as to

be threatened by flood waters. Wastes

cannot be applied to land during or

immediately preceding rain events to

avoid contaminated runoff. Land

application rates and procedures that

are developed for the facility in

accordance with State/Tribe guidelines,

may be made part of the PPP. The PPP

must include documentation indicating

that the procedures for the handling and

disposal of wastewater, manure and

pond solids comply with permit

requirements. Documentation of waste

storage protocol, land application

procedures, and manure handling

activities is a requirement of the draft

general permits to ensure that pollutants

are not discharged to waters of the

United States. Permittees may use the

wastewater or manure as fertilizer.

However, the permittee must limit the

application rate to the crop uptake rate

of (1) phosphorus in watersheds that

have been impaired by CAFO-related

activities, and (2) nitrogen or

phosphorus in non-impaired

watersheds, depending on whether the

soil phosphorus concentration is below

or above the phosphorus threshold level

for that State/Tribe.

(e) Preventive Maintenance

A preventive maintenance program

involves inspection and maintenance of

all management devices as well as

inspecting and testing equipment and

systems to uncover conditions that

could cause breakdowns or failures

resulting in discharges of pollutants to

surface waters. A good preventive

maintenance program includes

identifying equipment or retention

systems used; periodically inspecting or

testing equipment and retention

systems; adjusting, repairing, or

replacing items; and maintaining

complete records on the equipment and

retention systems.

(f) Good Housekeeping

Good housekeeping requires the

maintenance of a clean, orderly facility.

Good housekeeping includes

establishing housekeeping protocols to

reduce the possibility of mishandling

chemicals or equipment and training of

employees in housekeeping techniques.

Pollutants that may enter retention

structures at CAFO sites due to poor

housekeeping include oils, grease,

paints, gasoline, truck washdown,

solvents, litter, debris, pesticides,

insecticides, and sanitary wastes. Good

housekeeping protocol will include: (1)

designating areas for equipment

maintenance and repair; (2) providing

waste receptacles at convenient

locations for waste collection and

disposal; (3) locating equipment

washdown areas on site and providing

appropriate control of washwaters; (4)

providing protected storage areas for

chemicals, paints, solvents, fertilizers

and other potentially toxic materials;

and (5) providing adequately

maintained sanitary facilities.

(g) Spill Prevention and Response

Procedures

Areas where potential spills can

occur, and their accompanying drainage

points should be identified in the PPP.

Where appropriate, specifying material

handling procedures and storage

requirements in the plan should be

considered. Procedures for cleaning up

spills should be identified in the plan

and made available to the appropriate

personnel. The necessary equipment to

implement a clean up should be

available. Spill response procedures

should avoid discharging to retention

structures unless necessary because of

immediate safety considerations. The

following information should be

included in the PPP: (1) A written

description of materials that are used,

stored, or disposed of at the CAFO (such

as pesticides, cleaning agents, fuels,

etc.), (2) information on spills, including

a list of spills and leaks of toxic or

hazardous pollutants that occurred at

the facility beginning one year prior to

the effective date of these permits and

have the potential to contribute

pollutants to runoff waters, (3) a

summary of any existing sampling data

describing pollutants in previous

discharges, (4) other information to

consider, if applicable, include the

manner and frequency in which

pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers or soil

enhancers are applied at the site and an

evaluation of significant spills or leaks

of conventional, toxic and hazardous

pollutants based on a description of the

materials released, an estimate of the

volume of the release, the location of the

release, and any remediation or cleanup

measures taken.

(h) Sediment and Erosion Prevention

The PPP shall identify areas which,

due to topography, activities, or other

factors, have a high potential for

significant soil erosion and measures to

limit erosion.

(i) Employee Training

Employee training programs are

necessary to inform personnel, at all

levels, of the responsibility of the

requirements of the permit and of the

procedures outlined in the PPP.

Training should address topics such as

spill response, good housekeeping and

material management practices. A PPP

should identify periodic dates for such

training.

(j) Inspections and Recordkeeping

The facility operator or a responsible

person will be named in the PPP to

develop the plan and to conduct the

required inspections and reporting. This

person will assist the facility manager in

the implementation, maintenance, and

revision of the PPP. The activities and

responsibilities of the designated person

should include all aspects of the

facility’s PPP. However, the facility

manager, not the employee, should have

overall responsibility and accountability

for the quality and implementation of

the PPP.

Incidents such as spills, leaks and

improper dumping, along with other

information describing the quality and

quantity of discharges should be

included in the records. Inspections and
34884 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 123 / Friday, June 26, 1998 / Notices

maintenance activities such as cleaning

oil and grit separators or catch basins

should be documented and recorded.

Typical inspections should include

visual examination of pipes, pumps,

tanks, supports, foundations, dikes, and

drainage ditches. Material handling

areas should be inspected for evidence

of, or the potential for, pollutants

entering the drainage system. A tracking

or follow up procedure must be used to

ensure that appropriate and adequate

response and corrective actions have

been taken. Records of inspections are

required to be maintained.

It is important that permittees

conduct annual site inspections to

verify that the description of potential

pollutant sources is accurate, the site

drainage map has been updated or

otherwise modified to reflect current

conditions; and the controls outlined in

the PPP to reduce pollutants are being

implemented and are adequate. Records

documenting significant observations

made during the site inspection must be

retained as part of the PPP for a

minimum of three years. This allows

EPA access to records of permit

compliance much the same as all selfreported information required in other

NPDES permits.

(k) Consistency With Other Plans

Facilities which have requirements

for retention capacity and land

application of wastes provided in site

specific plans developed by NRCS, or

BMP programs developed by a

professional consultant may incorporate

any part of such plans into the PPP by

reference.

VII. Other Permit Requirements

1. Standard Permit Conditions

The draft permits include all of the

standard conditions used in NPDES

permitting to insure proper

implementation of the permit

requirements. Part IV of the proposed

permit includes standard conditions

and requirements.

2. State Certification

Under CWA Section 401(a)(1), EPA

may not issue an NPDES permit until

the State/Tribe in which the discharge

originates grants or waives certification

to ensure compliance with appropriate

requirements of the Act and State or

Tribal law. Section 301(b)(1)(C) of the

Act requires that NPDES permits

contain conditions that ensure

compliance with applicable State/Tribal

water quality standards or limitations.

The proposed permits contain

limitations intended to ensure

compliance with State/Tribal water

quality standards and has been

determined by EPA Region 6 to be

consistent with the applicable State or

Tribal water quality standards and the

corresponding implementation plans.

EPA Region 6 has requested that the (1)

New Mexico Environmental Department

provide certification of general permits

Nos. NMG80000 and NMG810000, (2)

Oklahoma Department of Agriculture

provide certification of general permits

Nos. OKG8000 and OKG810000, and (3)

Texas Natural Resources Conservation

Commission provide certification of

general permits Nos. TXG80000 and

TXG810000. EPA has also requested the

following Pueblos in New Mexico:

Pueblo of Isleta, Pueblo of Nambe,

Pueblo of Picuris, Pueblo of Pojoaque,

Pueblo of Sandia, Pueblo of San Juan,

Pueblo of Santa Clara, and Pueblo of

Tesuque to provide certification of

general permits Nos. NMG80000 and

NMG810000.

3. Reopener Clause

EPA reserves the right to revise,

revoke or modify the draft permits to

meet any applicable water quality

standards if (1) effluent limitations or

guidelines are established or modified

in an approved State/Tribe Water

Quality Management Plan or Waste

Load Allocation and if they are more

stringent than those listed in these

permits or control a pollutant not listed

in these permits; (2) a total daily

maximum load (TDML) is developed to

address pollution from CAFOs in a

particular watershed. Permittees in that

watershed may be required to obtain

individual permits or to obtain coverage

under an alternative general permit or

the permits may be modified to include

different limitations and/or

requirements; (3) a particular watershed

is identified by the State/Tribe as having

been impaired by CAFO-related

activities. Permittees in that watershed

may be required to obtain individual

permits or to obtain coverage under

watershed-specific general permits or

the permits may be modified to include

different limitations and/or

requirements.

The proposed permits are no

discharge permits. In addition, the

BMPs specified in Part II.D, when

implemented as specified in the draft

permits, will ensure that the State/

Tribal water quality standards are

protected. Any CAFO that is determined

to be contributing to a violation of a

water quality standard will not be

eligible for coverage under this permit

and may be required to apply for an

individual or alternative general permit

in accordance with Part I.F of these draft

permits.

If and when a particular watershed is

identified by the State/Tribe as having

been impaired by CAFO-related

activities, permittees in that watershed

may be required to obtain individual

permits or to obtain coverage under the

watershed-specific general permits or

the permits may be modified to include

different limitations and/or

requirements. Also, the watershedspecific general permits may be

reopened or modified to reflect changes

in the State/Tribe’s listing of CAFOimpaired watersheds. Permit

modification or revocation will be

conducted according to 40 CFR 122.62,

122.63, and 122.64.

VIII. Economic Impact

EPA believes that the proposed

general permits will be economically

beneficial to the regulated community.

The proposed general permits provides

an economic alternative to the

individual NPDES permit application

process that facilities covered by these

permits would otherwise be required to

follow. The requirements are consistent

with those already imposed by effective

Federal regulations and State/Tribal

requirements. The suggested

management practices and PPPs give the

regulated facilities guidelines and

options which may save them time and

money.

IX. Compliance With Other Federal

Regulations

1. NEPA Finding of No Significant

Impact

For each new CAFO with more than

1000 animal units or the number and

types of animals specified in Part

VII.I(a) of the permit [40 CFR part 122,

Appendix B(a)] and any existing CAFO

planning to expand to the number and

types of animals specified in Part

VII.I(a), EPA will conduct a preliminary

environmental review pursuant to the

requirements of CWA Section 511(c)

and the environmental review

procedures found at 40 CFR Part 6,

‘‘Procedures for Implementing the

Requirements of the Council on

Environmental Quality on the National

Environmental Policy Act’’ for NPDES

New Source Program. Therefore, new

CAFOs and existing CAFOs subject to

National Effluent Guidelines (40 CFR

part 412) will be required to complete

the form included in Addendum C of

the proposed general permits and

submit this information to EPA prior to

coverage under the permits. The

permittee must have documentation of

‘‘No Significant Impact’’ or a completed

Environmental Impact Statement in

accordance with an environmental
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 123 / Friday, June 26, 1998 / Notices 34885

review conducted by EPA as a condition

of permit coverage. This documentation

must be retained on site.

2. Endangered Species Act

The proposed general permits will

authorize no discharge, other than

during catastrophic or chronic rainfall

events which are relatively infrequent

occurrences. Therefore, reissuance of

these general permits is unlikely to

adversely affect any listed threatened or

endangered species or designated

critical habitat. EPA will conduct an

environmental review for each new

CAFO with 1000 or more animal units

and all existing CAFOs planning to

expand to the numbers of animals

specified in Part VII.I(a) of the draft

permits [40 CFR part 122, Appendix

B(a)]). This review will include an

evaluation of the potential impact on

endangered species due to the proposed

activities.

EPA Region 6 has submitted copies of

the proposed permits to the U.S. Fish &

Wildlife Service. During the comment

period of these proposed permits, EPA

will seek the Fish & Wildlife Service’s

concurrence in its ‘‘unlikely to

adversely affect’’ determination. In the

absence of such concurrence, EPA will

initiate formal consultation in

accordance with Section 7(a)(2) of the

Endangered Species Act.

3. National Historic Preservation Act

Facilities which adversely affect

properties listed or eligible for listing in

the National Register of Historical

Places are not eligible for coverage

under these draft permits. During the

application process, EPA will conduct

an environmental review for each new

CAFO with 1000 or more animal units

and all existing CAFOs planning to

expand to the number and types of

animals specified in Part VII.I(a) of the

draft permits [40 CFR Part 122,

Appendix B(a)]). This review will

include an evaluation of the potential

effects on historic sites and properties

due to the proposed activities. If, at any

time during the operation of the CAFO,

a permittee becomes aware that historic

properties may be affected by CAFOrelated activities not identified during

the application process, the permittee

must contact the State Historic

Preservation Officer (SHPO) or the

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

(THPO) to determine whether additional

actions are required to meet the

eligibility requirements of the draft

permits. This may result in initiation of

consultation with the SHPO or THPO

and the development or modification of

a written agreement or the PPP.

Therefore, reissuance of these general

permits will not adversely affect any

listed properties or properties that are

eligible for listing in the National

Register of Historical Places.

All existing CAFOs with less than

1000 AUs will not be eligible for

coverage under the reissued permit if

such facilities are already affecting

properties that are listed in the National

Register of Historic Properties. Existing

CAFOs must comply with Part I.D(3) of

the draft permit.

4. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has approved the information

collection requirements related to the

NOI and discharge monitoring activities

under the provisions of the Paperwork

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

(OMB Nos. 2040–0086 and 2040–0004,

respectively). EPA is currently

developing the information collection

request (ICR) (EPA ICR no.1868.01) for

the PPP-related activities and will

submit the ICR to OMB for approval.

5. Coastal Zone Management Act

Reauthorization Amendment

Pursuant to Section 307 of the Coastal

Zone Management Act (CZMA), federal

agency activities that affect the coastal

zone of a state with an approved coastal

zone management plan must be carried

out in a manner consistent, to the

maximum extent practable, with the

enforceable policies of that plan. To

assure such consistency, EPA is

proposing to require individual permits

for CAFOs located within a mile of the

Texas Coastal Zone Management Area.

Applications for such individual

permits will be subject to CZMA Section

307(c)(3)(A) and will receive the same

type of review by the Coastal

Coordination Council of the Texas

General Land Office (Administrator of

Texas’ approved Coastal Zone

Management Program) as corresponding

permits issued by the Texas Natural

Resources Conservation Commission

receive under 31 Texas Administrative

Code Section 505(11)(a)(6).

6. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Section 201 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), P.L.

104–4, generally requires Federal

agencies to assess the effects of their

‘‘regulatory actions’’ on State, local, and

tribal governments and the private

sector. UMRA uses the term ‘‘regulatory

actions’’ to refer to regulations. (See,

e.g., UMRA section 201, ‘‘Each agency

shall * * * assess the effects of Federal

regulatory actions * * * (other than to

the extent that such regulations

incorporate requirements specifically

set forth in law)’’ (emphasis added)).

UMRA section 102 defines ‘‘regulation’’

by reference to section 658 of Title 2 of

the U.S. Code, which in turn defines

‘‘regulation’’ and ‘‘rule’’ by reference to

section 601(2) of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (RFA). That section of

the RFA defines ‘‘rule’’ as ‘‘any rule for

which the agency publishes a notice of

proposed rulemaking pursuant to

section 553(b) of [the Administrative

Procedure Act (APA)], or any other law

* * *’’

NPDES general permits are not

‘‘rules’’ under the APA and thus not

subject to the APA requirement to

publish a notice of proposed

rulemaking. NPDES general permits are

also not subject to such a requirement

under the CWA. While EPA publishes a

notice to solicit public comment on

draft general permits, it does so

pursuant to the CWA section 402(a)

requirement to provide ‘‘an opportunity

for a hearing.’’ Thus, NPDES general

permits are not ‘‘rules’’ for RFA or

UMRA purposes but are treated with

rule-like procedures.

Signed this 18, day of June, 1998.

Oscar Ramirez, Jr.,

Deputy Director, Water Quality Protection

Division (6WQ), EPA Region 6.

[FR Doc. 98–16943 Filed 6–23–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

Notice of Public Information

Collection(s) submitted to OMB for

Review and Approval

June 18, 1998.

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications

Commission, as part of its continuing

effort to reduce paperwork burden

invites the general public and other

Federal agencies to take this

opportunity to comment on the

following information collection(s), as

required by the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104–13. An agency

may not conduct or sponsor a collection

of information unless it displays a

currently valid control number. No

person shall be subject to any penalty

for failing to comply with a collection

of information subject to the Paperwork

Reduction Act (PRA) that does not

display a valid control number.

Comments are requested concerning: (a)

whether the proposed collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the

Commission, including whether the

information shall have practical utility;

(b) the accuracy of the Commission’s

burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance